| Literature DB >> 18776955 |
Xiaobing Xie1, Xin Zhou, Xiying Qu, Jing Wen, Yanli Tian, Fang Zheng.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the genetic linkage of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) in a Chinese family.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18776955 PMCID: PMC2530518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Vis ISSN: 1090-0535 Impact factor: 2.367
Primers and sequences used in this study.
| MYOC1 | 353–509 | 62 | F: GGCTGGCTCCCC AGTATATA | 174 |
| R: ACAGCTGGCATCTCAGGC | ||||
| MYOC2 | 491–658 | 62 | F: ACG TTG CTG CAG CTT TGG | 196 |
| R: GATGACTGACATGGCCTGG | ||||
| MYOC3 | 603–772 | 65 | F: AGTGGCCGATGCCAGTATAC | 189 |
| R: CTGGTCCAAGGTCAATTGGT | ||||
| MYOC4 | 670–864 | 62 | F: AGGCCATGTCAGTCATCCAT | 214 |
| R: TCTCTGGTTTGGGTTTCCAG | ||||
| MYOC5 | 778–958 | 60 | F: TGACCTTGGACCAGGCTG | 200 |
| R: CCTGGCCAGATTCTCATTTT | ||||
| MYOC6 | 928–1095 | 63 | F: TGGAGGAAGAGAAGAAGCGA | 187 |
| R: CTGCTGAACTCAGAGTCCCC | ||||
| MYOC7 | 1416–1630 | 62 | F: AACATAGTCAATCCTTGGGCC | 230 |
| R: TAAAGACCATGTGGGCACA | ||||
| MYOC8 | 1933–2091 | 60 | F: TTATGGATTAAGTGGTGCTTCG | 177 |
| R: ATTCTCCACGTGGTCTCCTG | ||||
| MYOC9 | 2069–2232 | 64 | F: AAGCCCACCTACCCCTACAC | 184 |
| R: AATAGAGGCTCCCCGAGTACA | ||||
| MYOC10 | 2195–2366 | 64 | F: ATACTGCCTAGGCCACTGGA | 190 |
| R: CAATGTCCGTGTAGCCACC | ||||
| MYOC11 | 2335–2512 | 63 | F: TGGCTACCACGGACAGTTC | 197 |
| R: CATTGGCGACTGACTGCTTA | ||||
| MYOC12 | 2480–2653 | 64 | F: GAACTCGAACAAACCTGGGA | 195 |
| R: CATGCTGCTGTACTTATAGCGG | ||||
| MYOC13 | 2624–2783 | 62 | F: AGCAAGACCCTGACCATCC | 179 |
| R: AGCATCTCCTTCTGCCATTG |
The asterisk indicates that all numbers correspond to the numbering scheme of GenBank AB006688
Figure 1Pedigree with variances of MYOC. Solid symbols and open symbols represent affected and unaffected disease status, respectively. Suspects are marked with a question mark inside the squares. Roman numerals and Arabian numerals indicate generations and orders, respectively. Squares and circles represent males and females, respectively. A slash indicates a deceased family member. The arrow indicates the proband.
Clinical appearance of the affected members
| III:1 | M | 66 | 23 | OD: NLP | 46 | ** | # | End stage | Surgery## |
| OS: NLP | 44 | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| III:3 | F | 63 | 24 | OD: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery |
| OS: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| III:8 | F | 56 | 26 | OD: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery## |
| OS: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| III:14 | F | 38 | 21 | OD: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery |
| OS: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| III:15 | M | 35 | 19 | OD: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery |
| OS: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| IV:2 | F | 42 | 41 | OD: 0.5 | 28 | 0.7 | 1 | Mild | No |
| OS: 0.4 | 22 | 0.6 | 2 | Mild | No | ||||
| IV:4 | M | 36 | 26 | OD: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery |
| OS: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| IV:10 | M | 30 | 22 | OD:0.01 | 29 | 1 | 8 | Severe | Surgery |
| OS: NLP | 28 | 1 | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| IV:14 | M | 40 | 16 | OD: NLP | 29 | 0.8 | # | End stage | No |
| OS: NLP | 32 | 0.8 | # | End stage | No | ||||
| IV:20 | M | 33 | 26 | OD: NLP | 28 | ** | # | End stage | No |
| OS: NLP | * | ** | # | End stage | Surgery | ||||
| IV:22 | M | 35 | 30 | OD: 1.0 | 18 | 0.4 | 0 | Mild | No |
| OS: 0.25 | 35 | 0.6 | 3 | Moderate | No |
The asterisk indicates that the maximum intraocular pressure (IOP) was not certain because of relatively advanced glaucoma at the time of first presentation. The double asterisk indicate that the cup/disc ratio was not certain because of eyeball atrophy or cornea opacity. The sharp (hash mark) indicates that the visual field was not available because the patient had no light perception. The double sharp (hash marks) indicates that the member had surgery twice. The visual fields (VF) were graded for severity of visual field loss with a level grading scale. Severity classification is leveled by the visual field score: mild (0–2), moderate (3–5), severe (6–8), and end stage (no light perception). NLP, no light perception.
Figure 2Optic disc and visual field of individual IV:22. Glaucomatous optic disc atrophy is seen with visual field defects in the right eye. Panel A shows the optic disc atrophy of the right eye while panel B shows visual field defects of the right eye.
Clinical features and gene screening results of the consulters.
| III:10 | M | 54 | 19 | 0.3/0.4 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| III:12 | M | 51 | 20 | 0.5/0.4 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| III:16 | F | 30 | 21 | 0.4/0.4 | 0/0 | Suspect |
| III:17 | M | 27 | 18 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:6 | F | 34 | 17 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:8 | M | 32 | 15 | 0.3/0.2 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:12 | M | 25 | 19 | 0.3/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:16 | M | 38 | 20 | 0.5/0.5 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:18 | M | 36 | 20 | 0.5/0.5 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:25 | M | 35 | 21 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Suspect |
| IV:27 | F | 30 | 15 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:28 | M | 25 | 19 | 0.3/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:29 | F | 28 | 16 | 0.3/0.2 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| IV:30 | F | 24 | 18 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:1 | F | 19 | 18 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:2 | M | 13 | 16 | 0.3/0.5 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:3 | M | 11 | 17 | 0.4/0.5 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:4 | M | 9 | 16 | 0.4/0.4 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:5 | M | 9 | 16 | 0.5/0.5 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:6 | F | 16 | 17 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:7 | F | 15 | 18 | 0.4/0.4 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:8 | F | 13 | 20 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:9 | M | 10 | 18 | 0.4/0.3 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:10 | M | 4 | 20 | 0.5/0.5 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:11 | F | 12 | 19 | 0.2/0.4 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
| V:12 | F | 8 | 17 | 0.3/0.4 | 0/0 | Unaffected |
Summary of MYOC mutations found in this study.
| Arg76Lys (227G | 3/56 (5.3%) | 0 | [ |
| Pro13Leu (38 C | 5/56 (8.9%) | 0 | Present study |
| Gln337Stop (1009C del) | 12/56 (21.4%) | 0 | Present study |
Figure 3Electrophoretic mobility assays of PCR-RFLP and sequence results. A: PCR products were separated on 12% polyacrylamide gel from three representative samples, and the genotypes are shown for (1) Arg76Lys (227G→A), (2) Pro13Leu (38 C→T), and (3) Gln337Stop (1009C del). The sizes of the molecular weight marker and DNA fragments are shown in the left and the right sides of the gel, respectively. B: The representative chromatogram contains the sequence from the mutant DNA sequence strand for (1) Arg76Lys and (2) Pro13Leu as well as from the (3) wild-type and (4) mutant DNA sequence of Gln337Stop.
Antheprot analysis results of the wild-type and mutant protein comparison using different secondary structure prediction methods.
| GOR | Wild-type | 36 | 23 | 19 | 22 |
| Arg76Lys (227G->A) | 36 | 23 | 19 | 22 | |
| Pro13Leu (38 C->T) | 36 | 23 | 20 | 21 | |
| Gln337Stop (1009C del) | 36 | 20 | 20 | 24 | |
| DMP | Wild-type | 38 | 28 | 9 | 25 |
| Arg76Lys (227G->A) | 38 | 28 | 9 | 25 | |
| Pro13Leu (38 C->T) | 39 | 28 | 9 | 24 | |
| Gln337Stop (1009C del) | 42 | 24 | 10 | 24 | |
| PRD | Wild-type | 39 | 13 | 0 | 47 |
| Arg76Lys (227G->A) | 39 | 13 | 0 | 47 | |
| Pro13Leu (38 C->T) | 39 | 13 | 0 | 47 | |
| Gln337Stop (1009C del) | 44 | 11 | 0 | 45 |
The abbreviations in the “Method” column are; DPM: Double Prediction Method [23], PRD: Predator method [24], GOR: Garnier, Osguthorpe, Robson [25].