INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of KAL1, GNRH1, GNRHR, PROK2, and PROKR2 copy numbervariations in patients with idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (IHH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 86 hypogonadal males (76 diagnosed with normosmic idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism [nIHH] andten with Kallmann syndrome [KS]) and 95 healthy control individuals were studied for the presence of aforementioned genomic rearrangements,using multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA). RESULTS: We detected that of the 86 patients, three with KS had a deletion of the KAL1 gene in exon 9, one of whom also carried a duplicationin exon 11; and three with nIHH had a duplication of the PROK2 gene in exon 3; a deletion of the GNRHR gene in exon 1; anda duplication of the same gene in exon 2, respectively. No abnormalities were found in the patient group for the PROKR2 and GNRH1genes. In addition, no genomic rearrangements were identified in the healthy control individuals for the described genes. CONCLUSIONS: Defining the genetic basis of disease is essential to improve our understanding of this complex disorder, and could be usefulfor genetic counselling and for directing therapy. In addition, discovering the association between genetic mutations and disease isimportant for our better understanding of normal reproductive functions.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of KAL1, GNRH1, GNRHR, PROK2, and PROKR2 copy numbervariations in patients with idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (IHH). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 86 hypogonadal males (76 diagnosed with normosmic idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism [nIHH] andten with Kallmann syndrome [KS]) and 95 healthy control individuals were studied for the presence of aforementioned genomic rearrangements,using multiplex ligation dependent probe amplification (MLPA). RESULTS: We detected that of the 86 patients, three with KS had a deletion of the KAL1 gene in exon 9, one of whom also carried a duplicationin exon 11; and three with nIHH had a duplication of the PROK2 gene in exon 3; a deletion of the GNRHR gene in exon 1; anda duplication of the same gene in exon 2, respectively. No abnormalities were found in the patient group for the PROKR2 and GNRH1genes. In addition, no genomic rearrangements were identified in the healthy control individuals for the described genes. CONCLUSIONS: Defining the genetic basis of disease is essential to improve our understanding of this complex disorder, and could be usefulfor genetic counselling and for directing therapy. In addition, discovering the association between genetic mutations and disease isimportant for our better understanding of normal reproductive functions.
Authors: Maria I Stamou; Harrison Brand; Mei Wang; Isaac Wong; Margaret F Lippincott; Lacey Plummer; William F Crowley; Michael Talkowski; Stephanie Seminara; Ravikumar Balasubramanian Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 6.134
Authors: Te Liu; Yiyang Jia; Liting Zhou; Qi Wang; Di Sun; Jin Xu; Juan Wu; Huaiji Chen; Feng Xu; Lin Ye Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Vassos Neocleous; Pavlos Fanis; Meropi Toumba; George A Tanteles; Melpo Schiza; Feride Cinarli; Nicolas C Nicolaides; Anastasis Oulas; George M Spyrou; Christos S Mantzoros; Dimitrios Vlachakis; Nicos Skordis; Leonidas A Phylactou Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 5.555