OBJECTIVE: To determine whether detection of small mutations of the dystrophin gene can be increased using an enhanced method of single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis. BACKGROUND: Usual methods of DNA analysis for Duchenne dystrophy cannot identify mutations in one-third of cases. Muscle biopsy, with its inherent risks and added liability for patients with Duchenne dystrophy, becomes the sole method of diagnosis. Even with a tissue diagnosis of dystrophin deficiency, many families are excluded from carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: Genomic DNA from a cohort of 93 patients with Duchenne dystrophy without identifiable gene mutations was screened for mutations. In each case, 22 kilobases of genomic DNA were scanned, including all 79 exons of the dystrophin gene, adjacent intronic regions, and six alternative exons 1. RESULTS: Sixty-eight (73%) had small mutations, including 34 nonsense mutations, 27 microdeletions and insertions, and 7 splice site mutations. No missense mutations were found. One nonsense mutation in exon 59 was detected in four patients. Most mutations were new; 54 of 62 different small mutations have not been reported. Mutations were found throughout the gene: 24% in the first quartile, 31% in the second, 16% in the third, and 29% in the fourth. CONCLUSIONS: A highly sensitive single-strand conformation polymorphism method substantially increased detection of small dystrophin gene mutations and made it possible to diagnose approximately 90% of patients with Duchenne dystrophy by DNA analysis. These findings, combined with cost savings and safety issues, provide compelling reasons to consider DNA analysis as the initial diagnostic test for the suspected dystrophin-deficient patient.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether detection of small mutations of the dystrophin gene can be increased using an enhanced method of single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis. BACKGROUND: Usual methods of DNA analysis for Duchenne dystrophy cannot identify mutations in one-third of cases. Muscle biopsy, with its inherent risks and added liability for patients with Duchenne dystrophy, becomes the sole method of diagnosis. Even with a tissue diagnosis of dystrophin deficiency, many families are excluded from carrier detection and prenatal diagnosis. METHODS: Genomic DNA from a cohort of 93 patients with Duchenne dystrophy without identifiable gene mutations was screened for mutations. In each case, 22 kilobases of genomic DNA were scanned, including all 79 exons of the dystrophin gene, adjacent intronic regions, and six alternative exons 1. RESULTS: Sixty-eight (73%) had small mutations, including 34 nonsense mutations, 27 microdeletions and insertions, and 7 splice site mutations. No missense mutations were found. One nonsense mutation in exon 59 was detected in four patients. Most mutations were new; 54 of 62 different small mutations have not been reported. Mutations were found throughout the gene: 24% in the first quartile, 31% in the second, 16% in the third, and 29% in the fourth. CONCLUSIONS: A highly sensitive single-strand conformation polymorphism method substantially increased detection of small dystrophin gene mutations and made it possible to diagnose approximately 90% of patients with Duchenne dystrophy by DNA analysis. These findings, combined with cost savings and safety issues, provide compelling reasons to consider DNA analysis as the initial diagnostic test for the suspected dystrophin-deficient patient.
Authors: Kathryn B Garber; Lisa M Vincent; John J Alexander; Lora J H Bean; Sherri Bale; Madhuri Hegde Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Edwardo Ramos; José G Conde; Rafael Arias Berrios; Sherly Pardo; Omar Gómez; Manuel F Mas Rodríguez Journal: J Neuromuscul Dis Date: 2016-05-27
Authors: Katherine D Mathews; Chris Cunniff; Jiji R Kantamneni; Emma Ciafaloni; Timothy Miller; Dennis Matthews; Valerie Cwik; Charlotte Druschel; Lisa Miller; F John Meaney; John Sladky; Paul A Romitti Journal: J Child Neurol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.987
Authors: Jerry R Mendell; Louise Rodino-Klapac; Zarife Sahenk; Vinod Malik; Brian K Kaspar; Christopher M Walker; K Reed Clark Journal: Neurosci Lett Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Madhuri R Hegde; Ephrem L H Chin; Jennifer G Mulle; David T Okou; Stephen T Warren; Michael E Zwick Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Kevin M Flanigan; Diane M Dunn; Andrew von Niederhausern; Payam Soltanzadeh; Eduard Gappmaier; Michael T Howard; Jacinda B Sampson; Jerry R Mendell; Cheryl Wall; Wendy M King; Alan Pestronk; Julaine M Florence; Anne M Connolly; Katherine D Mathews; Carrie M Stephan; Karla S Laubenthal; Brenda L Wong; Paula J Morehart; Amy Meyer; Richard S Finkel; Carsten G Bonnemann; Livija Medne; John W Day; Joline C Dalton; Marcia K Margolis; Veronica J Hinton; Robert B Weiss Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.878