Molecular biology reports · 2026
APOE ε4 variant interpretation and protein numbering discrepancy: a case report.
СтатьяКлинический случайНазвание 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.
Dagdelen Burak, Ozguncu Cihat, Zamani Ayse Gul, Arikoglu Hilal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the leading cause of dementia worldwide, and the apolipoprotein E (APOE) ε4 allele is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset form. Differences in protein numbering conventions may complicate recognition of clinically important variants during genomic interpretation.
METHODS: We report a 57-year-old man with early-onset AD who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS). Genetic findings were interpreted using transcript, protein, and dbSNP annotations to assess the clinical significance of the identified variant.
RESULTS: NGS identified a homozygous APOE variant annotated as p.Cys130Arg. This annotation corresponds to the APOE ε4-defining rs429358 variant, commonly reported as Cys112Arg in the mature protein sequence. The variant was initially classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in the clinical genetic report. Subsequent review demonstrated that p.Cys130Arg and Cys112Arg represent equivalent annotations of the same rs429358 allele.
CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights how alternative protein numbering conventions may complicate variant interpretation and underscores the importance of integrating genomic, transcript, protein, and dbSNP-level information during clinical genomic analysis.
METHODS: We report a 57-year-old man with early-onset AD who underwent next-generation sequencing (NGS). Genetic findings were interpreted using transcript, protein, and dbSNP annotations to assess the clinical significance of the identified variant.
RESULTS: NGS identified a homozygous APOE variant annotated as p.Cys130Arg. This annotation corresponds to the APOE ε4-defining rs429358 variant, commonly reported as Cys112Arg in the mature protein sequence. The variant was initially classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) in the clinical genetic report. Subsequent review demonstrated that p.Cys130Arg and Cys112Arg represent equivalent annotations of the same rs429358 allele.
CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights how alternative protein numbering conventions may complicate variant interpretation and underscores the importance of integrating genomic, transcript, protein, and dbSNP-level information during clinical genomic analysis.