Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
Phenotypic distinctions between mosaic forms of tuberous sclerosis complex.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаResearch Support, N.I.H., IntramuralПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Treichel Alison M, Hamieh Lana, Nathan Neera R, Tyburczy Magdalena E, Wang Ji-An, Oyerinde Oyetewa, Raiciulescu Sorana, Julien-Williams Patricia, Jones Amanda M, Gopalakrishnan Vissaagan, Moss Joel, Kwiatkowski David J, Darling Thomas N
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To determine if mosaic tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) can be stratified into subtypes that correspond with prognosis and extent of disease.
METHODS: Next-generation sequencing of skin tumor and other samples was used to identify patients with mosaic pathogenic variants in TSC1 or TSC2. Extent of disease, onset age, and family history of TSC were determined through retrospective analysis of patient records.
RESULTS: The median number of disease findings and age at penetrance differed between mosaic patients with asymmetrically distributed facial angiofibromas (4 findings, 24 years, n = 7), mosaic patients with bilaterally symmetric facial angiofibromas (8 findings, 10 years, n = 12), and germline TSC patients (10 findings, 4 years, n = 29). Cutaneous and internal organ involvement positively correlated in mosaic (R = 0.62, p = 0.005), but not germline (R = -0.24, p = 0.24) TSC. Variant allele fraction (VAF) in the blood (range: 0-19%) positively correlated with the number of major features (R = 0.55, p = 0.028). Five had a TSC2 variant identified in the skin that was below detection in the blood. One of 12 children from a mosaic parent had TSC.
CONCLUSION: The phenotype of mosaic TSC ranged from mild to indistinguishable from germline disease. Patients with mosaicism and asymmetric facial angiofibromas exhibited fewer findings, later onset, and lower VAF in the blood.
METHODS: Next-generation sequencing of skin tumor and other samples was used to identify patients with mosaic pathogenic variants in TSC1 or TSC2. Extent of disease, onset age, and family history of TSC were determined through retrospective analysis of patient records.
RESULTS: The median number of disease findings and age at penetrance differed between mosaic patients with asymmetrically distributed facial angiofibromas (4 findings, 24 years, n = 7), mosaic patients with bilaterally symmetric facial angiofibromas (8 findings, 10 years, n = 12), and germline TSC patients (10 findings, 4 years, n = 29). Cutaneous and internal organ involvement positively correlated in mosaic (R = 0.62, p = 0.005), but not germline (R = -0.24, p = 0.24) TSC. Variant allele fraction (VAF) in the blood (range: 0-19%) positively correlated with the number of major features (R = 0.55, p = 0.028). Five had a TSC2 variant identified in the skin that was below detection in the blood. One of 12 children from a mosaic parent had TSC.
CONCLUSION: The phenotype of mosaic TSC ranged from mild to indistinguishable from germline disease. Patients with mosaicism and asymmetric facial angiofibromas exhibited fewer findings, later onset, and lower VAF in the blood.