American journal of ophthalmology case reports · 2022
Compound dominant-null heterozygosity in a family with RP1-related retinal dystrophy.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Buckley Thomas M W, Cehajic-Kapetanovic Jasmina, Shanks Morag, Clouston Penny, MacLaren Robert E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To report on the presence of autosomal dominant and compound dominant-null RP1-related retinitis pigmentosa in the same non-consanguineous family.
OBSERVATION: The father was minimally symptomatic and referred by his optometrist aged 38. He was diagnosed with rod-cone dystrophy, confirmed to be caused by the previously reported RP1 c.2613dupA mutation. He was reassured that his 11-year-old daughter had a 50% chance of inheriting the same mutation and that the condition, if she had it, would most likely be similar. Clinical phenotyping of his daughter however revealed an early onset cone-rod dystrophy. The mother was entirely asymptomatic and clinically normal. Sanger sequencing of the RP1 gene in the daughter confirmed the presence of biallelic mutations - the dominant c.2613dupA variant from her father and a c.3843dupT truncating variant inherited from her mother, both located in exon 4 of the RP1 gene. The maternal c.3843dupT has previously been reported.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: Pathogenic variants in exon 4 of RP1 are known to cause differential dominant and recessive disease. The presence of both phenotypes in a single family has not yet been reported. The father, being minimally symptomatic, is affected by a known dominant variant which truncates the RP1 protein more proximally. However, inheritance of both variants in a compound heterozygous state in the daughter resulted in a much more severe, early onset cone-rod phenotype in a pattern akin to recessive disease. This raises challenges for genetic counselling and development of gene-based therapies for RP1 mutations.
OBSERVATION: The father was minimally symptomatic and referred by his optometrist aged 38. He was diagnosed with rod-cone dystrophy, confirmed to be caused by the previously reported RP1 c.2613dupA mutation. He was reassured that his 11-year-old daughter had a 50% chance of inheriting the same mutation and that the condition, if she had it, would most likely be similar. Clinical phenotyping of his daughter however revealed an early onset cone-rod dystrophy. The mother was entirely asymptomatic and clinically normal. Sanger sequencing of the RP1 gene in the daughter confirmed the presence of biallelic mutations - the dominant c.2613dupA variant from her father and a c.3843dupT truncating variant inherited from her mother, both located in exon 4 of the RP1 gene. The maternal c.3843dupT has previously been reported.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPORTANCE: Pathogenic variants in exon 4 of RP1 are known to cause differential dominant and recessive disease. The presence of both phenotypes in a single family has not yet been reported. The father, being minimally symptomatic, is affected by a known dominant variant which truncates the RP1 protein more proximally. However, inheritance of both variants in a compound heterozygous state in the daughter resulted in a much more severe, early onset cone-rod phenotype in a pattern akin to recessive disease. This raises challenges for genetic counselling and development of gene-based therapies for RP1 mutations.