Z Karaca1, S Taheri2, F Tanriverdi1, K Unluhizarci1, F Kelestimur3. 1. Department of Endocrinology, Erciyes University Medical School, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey. 2. Department of Medical Biology, Erciyes University Medical School, Kayseri, Turkey. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Erciyes University Medical School, 38039, Kayseri, Turkey. fktimur@erciyes.edu.tr.
Abstract
CONTEXT: In sporadic acromegaly, overall AIP(mut) prevalence is reported as 3, 4.1 and 16 % in studies carried out across Europe. However, it is not known whether the prevalence shows any changes across different ethnicities. The aim of the study was to identify prevalence of AIP(mut) in a series of Turkish acromegalic patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Direct sequencing of AIP gene was performed in 92 sporadic acromegalic patients. RESULTS: One patient was found to have a new mutation in exon 6: g67.258,286 (G/A) heterozygote; (GGC/GAC; gly/asp). Apart from this new mutation, previously defined synonymous mutations in AIP gene were detected in seven patients (Exon 4; rs2276020; (GAC/GAT; asp/asp) and six patients were found to have five different intronic mutations in AIP gene which were not previously defined. The patient with pathogenic AIP(mut) presented at a young age and had an aggressive and treatment resistant tumour. The prevalence of AIP(mut) in Turkish patients was found to be 1 % in sporadic acromegaly in the present study. In addition, one synonymous mutation which was previously defined and six new intronic mutations have been described in Turkish acromegalic patients. All acromegalic patients with synonymous AIP(mut) presented with macroadenoma and majority of them had invasive tumour. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of AIP(mut) in Turkish patients was found to be 1 % in sporadic acromegaly in the present study. This ratio increases when younger age groups are taken into account 6 % among patients <30 years of age at the time of diagnosis of acromegaly. The clinical features of acromegaly, such as having large and invasive tumours, may be affected by the presence of synonymous AIP(mut).
CONTEXT: In sporadic acromegaly, overall AIP(mut) prevalence is reported as 3, 4.1 and 16 % in studies carried out across Europe. However, it is not known whether the prevalence shows any changes across different ethnicities. The aim of the study was to identify prevalence of AIP(mut) in a series of Turkish acromegalicpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Direct sequencing of AIP gene was performed in 92 sporadic acromegalicpatients. RESULTS: One patient was found to have a new mutation in exon 6: g67.258,286 (G/A) heterozygote; (GGC/GAC; gly/asp). Apart from this new mutation, previously defined synonymous mutations in AIP gene were detected in seven patients (Exon 4; rs2276020; (GAC/GAT; asp/asp) and six patients were found to have five different intronic mutations in AIP gene which were not previously defined. The patient with pathogenic AIP(mut) presented at a young age and had an aggressive and treatment resistant tumour. The prevalence of AIP(mut) in Turkish patients was found to be 1 % in sporadic acromegaly in the present study. In addition, one synonymous mutation which was previously defined and six new intronic mutations have been described in Turkish acromegalicpatients. All acromegalicpatients with synonymous AIP(mut) presented with macroadenoma and majority of them had invasive tumour. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of AIP(mut) in Turkish patients was found to be 1 % in sporadic acromegaly in the present study. This ratio increases when younger age groups are taken into account 6 % among patients <30 years of age at the time of diagnosis of acromegaly. The clinical features of acromegaly, such as having large and invasive tumours, may be affected by the presence of synonymous AIP(mut).
Authors: Ryan C Hunt; Vijaya L Simhadri; Matthew Iandoli; Zuben E Sauna; Chava Kimchi-Sarfaty Journal: Trends Genet Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 11.639
Authors: Giampaolo Trivellin; Adrian F Daly; Fabio R Faucz; Bo Yuan; Liliya Rostomyan; Darwin O Larco; Marie Helene Schernthaner-Reiter; Eva Szarek; Letícia F Leal; Jean-Hubert Caberg; Emilie Castermans; Chiara Villa; Aggeliki Dimopoulos; Prashant Chittiboina; Paraskevi Xekouki; Nalini Shah; Daniel Metzger; Philippe A Lysy; Emanuele Ferrante; Natalia Strebkova; Nadia Mazerkina; Maria Chiara Zatelli; Maya Lodish; Anelia Horvath; Rodrigo Bertollo de Alexandre; Allison D Manning; Isaac Levy; Margaret F Keil; Maria de la Luz Sierra; Leonor Palmeira; Wouter Coppieters; Michel Georges; Luciana A Naves; Mauricette Jamar; Vincent Bours; T John Wu; Catherine S Choong; Jerome Bertherat; Philippe Chanson; Peter Kamenický; William E Farrell; Anne Barlier; Martha Quezado; Ivana Bjelobaba; Stanko S Stojilkovic; Jurgen Wess; Stefano Costanzi; Pengfei Liu; James R Lupski; Albert Beckers; Constantine A Stratakis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S Melmed; A Colao; A Barkan; M Molitch; A B Grossman; D Kleinberg; D Clemmons; P Chanson; E Laws; J Schlechte; M L Vance; K Ho; A Giustina Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Marianthi Georgitsi; Anniina Raitila; Auli Karhu; Karoliina Tuppurainen; Markus J Mäkinen; Outi Vierimaa; Ralf Paschke; Wolfgang Saeger; Rob B van der Luijt; Timo Sane; Mercedes Robledo; Ernesto De Menis; Robert J Weil; Anna Wasik; Grzegorz Zielinski; Olga Lucewicz; Jan Lubinski; Virpi Launonen; Pia Vahteristo; Lauri A Aaltonen Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Medard F M van den Broek; Bernadette P M van Nesselrooij; Annemarie A Verrijn Stuart; Rachel S van Leeuwaarde; Gerlof D Valk Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 5.555