V Gieselmann1. 1. Institut für Physiologische Chemie, Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany. gieselmann@institut.physiochem.uni-bonn.de
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Lysosomal storage diseases are clinically heterogeneous with respect to their age of onset, progression of symptoms and the particular organs involved. Varying levels of residual enzyme activity, associated with different defective alleles that cause the respective diseases, are responsible in part for this clinical heterogeneity. In general, the higher the residual enzyme activity, the milder the phenotype. Enzyme activity in severe forms of disease is frequently zero, and in mild forms usually does not exceed approximately 5%. However, the correlation is not so strict as to allow prediction of the phenotype of individual patients. The molecular basis of the different levels of enzyme activity can only be revealed by biochemical investigations of the defective lysosomal proteins. Null alleles may be due to splice-site mutations or deletions. In the case of missense mutations, enzymes frequently fold incorrectly and are retained in the endoplasmic reticulum and subsequently degraded. As these enzymes do not reach the lysosome, they do not provide any functional residual activity. Residual enzyme activity is only observed in cases where the defective enzyme reaches the lysosome and has retained enzymatic activity. Patients carrying the same mutant alleles still show considerable phenotypic variability due to modifying genes and epigenetic factors. None of these has so far been elucidated. However, there are some indications that differences in splicing-factor machinery may influence the phenotypic expression of splice-site mutations and that hormonal modulation of secondary microglial activation in lipidosis may also influence the disease course. CONCLUSION: Phenotypic variability is a frequent phenomenon in lysosomal storage diseases. Residual enzyme activity has been identified as one of the factors influencing the clinical outcome of disease; however, it is obvious that other genetic and epigenetic factors also affect phenotypic variability, particularly in patients with late onset disease.
UNLABELLED: Lysosomal storage diseases are clinically heterogeneous with respect to their age of onset, progression of symptoms and the particular organs involved. Varying levels of residual enzyme activity, associated with different defective alleles that cause the respective diseases, are responsible in part for this clinical heterogeneity. In general, the higher the residual enzyme activity, the milder the phenotype. Enzyme activity in severe forms of disease is frequently zero, and in mild forms usually does not exceed approximately 5%. However, the correlation is not so strict as to allow prediction of the phenotype of individual patients. The molecular basis of the different levels of enzyme activity can only be revealed by biochemical investigations of the defective lysosomal proteins. Null alleles may be due to splice-site mutations or deletions. In the case of missense mutations, enzymes frequently fold incorrectly and are retained in the endoplasmic reticulum and subsequently degraded. As these enzymes do not reach the lysosome, they do not provide any functional residual activity. Residual enzyme activity is only observed in cases where the defective enzyme reaches the lysosome and has retained enzymatic activity. Patients carrying the same mutant alleles still show considerable phenotypic variability due to modifying genes and epigenetic factors. None of these has so far been elucidated. However, there are some indications that differences in splicing-factor machinery may influence the phenotypic expression of splice-site mutations and that hormonal modulation of secondary microglial activation in lipidosis may also influence the disease course. CONCLUSION: Phenotypic variability is a frequent phenomenon in lysosomal storage diseases. Residual enzyme activity has been identified as one of the factors influencing the clinical outcome of disease; however, it is obvious that other genetic and epigenetic factors also affect phenotypic variability, particularly in patients with late onset disease.
Authors: Wing C Lee; Sandra Almeida; Mercedes Prudencio; Thomas R Caulfield; Yong-Jie Zhang; William M Tay; Peter O Bauer; Jeannie Chew; Hiroki Sasaguri; Karen R Jansen-West; Tania F Gendron; Caroline T Stetler; NiCole Finch; Ian R Mackenzie; Rosa Rademakers; Fen-Biao Gao; Leonard Petrucelli Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2013-10-26 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Can Ficicioglu; Roberto Giugliani; Paul Harmatz; Nancy J Mendelsohn; Virginie Jego; Rossella Parini Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.802