↓ Skip to main content

WES homozygosity mapping in a recessive form of Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy reveals intronic GDAP1 variant leading to a premature stop codon

Overview of attention for article published in neurogenetics, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
WES homozygosity mapping in a recessive form of Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy reveals intronic GDAP1 variant leading to a premature stop codon
Published in
neurogenetics, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10048-018-0539-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marion Masingue, Jimmy Perrot, Robert-Yves Carlier, Guenaelle Piguet-Lacroix, Philippe Latour, Tanya Stojkovic

Abstract

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) refers to a group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous inherited neuropathies. Ganglioside-induced differentiation-associated protein 1 GDAP1-related CMT has been reported in an autosomal dominant or recessive form in patients presenting either axonal or demyelinating neuropathy. We report two Sri Lankan sisters born to consanguineous parents and presenting with a severe axonal sensorimotor neuropathy. The early onset of the disease, the distal and proximal weakness and atrophy leading to major disability, along with areflexia, and, most notably, vocal cord and diaphragm paralysis were highly evocative of a GDAP1-related CMT. However, sequencing of the coding regions of the gene was normal. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) was performed and revealed that the largest region of homozygosity was around GDAP1 with several variants, mostly in non-coding regions. In view of the high clinical suspicion of GDAP1 gene involvement, we examined the variants in this gene and this, along with functional studies, allowed us to identify an alternative splicing site revealing a cryptic in-frame stop codon in intron 4 responsible for a severe loss of wild-type GDAP1. This work is the first to describe a deleterious mutation in GDAP1 gene outside of coding sequences or intronic junctions and emphasizes the importance of interpreting molecular analysis, and in particular WES results, in light of the clinical and electrophysiological phenotype.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Unspecified 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 6 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Unspecified 2 8%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#18,585,544
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from neurogenetics
#307
of 380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#329,179
of 439,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from neurogenetics
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 380 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.