| Literature DB >> 30482216 |
Bong Jik Kim1,2, Jeong Hun Jang3, Jin Hee Han2, Hye-Rim Park2, Doo Yi Oh2, Seungmin Lee2, Min Young Kim2, Ah Reum Kim4, Chung Lee4, Nayoung K D Kim4, Woong-Yang Park4,5, Yun-Hoon Choung6, Byung Yoon Choi7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD) is a heterogeneous disorder and its management quite varies depending upon the etiology, even including self-resolution, OTOF is an important molecular etiology of prelingual ANSD and has emerged as an attractive target for implementation of precision medicine in terms of timing and prognosis prediction of auditory rehabilitation. However, to date, the literature is lacking in the genotype-phenotype relationship of this gene as well as efficient molecular testing strategy in the clinic in many populations and to make things more complicated in Koreans, the most prevalent variant p.Arg1939Gln among Korean ANSD children frequently evaded detection by next generation sequencing (NGS), resulting in delayed genetic diagnosis and late cochlear implantation (CI). The aims of this study are to document the mutational and phenotypic spectrum of OTOF-related ANSD (DFNB9) in the Korean population, further establishing genotype-phenotype correlation and proposing a set of the most commonly found OTOF variants to be screened first.Entities:
Keywords: Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder; Auditory steady-state response; Cochlear implantation; DFNB9; OTOF; Whole exome sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30482216 PMCID: PMC6260760 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-018-1708-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Pedigrees of DFNB9 families with molecular genetic diagnosis. Filled symbols represent hearing-impaired individuals, and clear symbols denote those with normal hearing. A diagonal line through a symbol indicates a deceased person and black arrows indicate probands. Designations below each proband represent sex/age. Previously diagnosed families are surrounded by a red border
Mutational spectrum of 11 subjects from 10 families with DFNB9
| Family ID | Variant ( | State | Prediction algorithm | Conservation score | MAF | Classification of pathogenic variants [ | References | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mutation taster | PolyPhen-2 | SIFT | PhyloP | GERP++ | Global MAF | KRGDB (n = 1722) | |||||
| SB10-23 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Hom | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| SH132-273 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Hom | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| SB22-51 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| Large genomic deletion Chr2:26710657 ~ 26706557 | Het | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | Pathogenic (PVS1, PP1, PP4) | [ | |||
| SB204-398 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| c.5566C > T: p.Arg1856Trp | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.963 | 2.84 | A = 0.00004/5 (ExAC) | A = 0.000871/3 | Pathogenic | [ | |
| SH81-185 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| c.2521G > A: p.Glu841Lys | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.523 | 5 | T = 0.00003/3 (ExAC) | ND | Pathogenic | [ | |
| SB239-465 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| c.3032T > C: p.Leu1011Pro | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.012 | 4.64 | ND | ND | Pathogenic | [ | |
| SB239-466 | ac.5791C > A: p.Pro1931Thr rs537706054 | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.867 | 5.22 | T = 0.000008/1 (ExAC) | ND | Pathogenic | This study |
| c.2521G > A: p.Glu841Lys | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.523 | 5 | T = 0.00003/3 (ExAC) | ND | Pathogenic | [ | |
| SH195-443 | c.3192C > G: p.Tyr1064Ter | Hom | DC | NA | NA | 1.937 | 2.78 | C = 0.000008/1 (ExAC) | C = 0.00029/1 | Pathogenic (PVS1, PM2, PP1, PP3, PP4) | [ |
| SH234-547 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.261 | 2.28 | T = 0.00003/1 (ExAC) | T = 0.001452/5 | Pathogenic | [ |
| c.5566C > T: p.Arg1856Trp | Het | DC | PD | D | 2.963 | 2.84 | A = 0.00004/5 (ExAC) | A = 0.000871/3 | Pathogenic | [ | |
| AJ2-3 | ac.5534G > A: p.Gly1845Glu | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.739 | 4.97 | ND | ND | Pathogenic | This study |
| c.3032T > C: p.Leu1011Pro | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.012 | 4.64 | ND | ND | Pathogenic | [ | |
| SH230-538 | c.2521G > A: p.Glu841Lys | Het | DC | PD | D | 5.523 | 5 | T = 0.00003/3 (ExAC) | ND | Pathogenic | [ |
| ac.4227 + 5G > C | Het | DC | NA | NA | 1.616 | 3.95 | G = 0.00006/7 (ExAC) | ND | Likely pathogenic (PM2, PM3 | This study | |
Splice site variant prediction tools by ESEfinder, NNSplice, and NetGene2: splice site broken. Normal score (10.34940) and mutant score (6.54650) by ESEfinder, Normal score (0.99) and mutant score (0.50) by NNSplice, Normal score (0.997) and mutant score (0.685) by NetGene2
In silico prediction Algorithm: Polyphen-2 (http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/pph2/index.shtml); SIFT (http://sift.jcvi.org/www/SIFT_chr_coords_submit.html) or SIFT-indels2 (http://sift.bii.a-star.edu.sg/www/SIFT_indels2.html)
Conservation tools: GERP++ score in the UCSC Genome Browser (http://genome-asia.ucsc.edu/); PhyloP score from the Mutation Taster (http://www.mutationtaster.org/)
Splice site prediction tools: ESEfinder (http://rulai.cshl.edu/cgi-bin/tools/ESE3/esefinder.cgi?process=home); NNSplice (http://www.fruitfly.org/seq_tools/splice.html); NetGene2 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/NetGene2/)
ExAC, Exome Aggregation Consortium (http://exac.broadinstitute.org/)
1000 Genomes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/variation/tools/1000genomes/)
KRGDB, Korean Reference Genome DB (http://152.99.75.168/KRGDB/)
Het, heterozygote mutant; Hom, homozygote mutant; DC, disease causing; PD, probably damaging; D, damaging; ND, not detected; NA, not applicable
aNovel variant
Fig. 2Protein domain structures of otoferlin with pathogenic variants in our cohort. Upper panel: Otoferlin contains six C2 domains (C2A–C2F). Missense variants are displayed (top) on the domain structure, and nonsense and splice site variants are located below the domain structure. A red bordered area contains three C2 domains encoded by short isoform of OTOF. TM: transmembrane domain. Lower panel: Exon–Intron structure of various OTOF isoforms (NM_001287489, NM_194248, NM_194323, NM_194322, NM_004802) locating each variant detected in the study (Captured from UCSC genome browser (https://genome.ucsc.edu/))
Fig. 3Audiological phenotypes of affected members in ten families with DFNB9. ABR, OAE, and ASSR results are described in order in each patient. Each number on each side of ABR (right in red and left in blue) represents the stimulus intensity calibrated in dB or nHL, which showed no response in all patients. Auditory thresholds of ASSR at 500 Hz are circled in red and blue, each for right and left sides, respectively
Phenotypic spectrum of 11 subjects (including SB239-463, 464) from 10 families with DFNB9
| Family ID | Genotype variant ( | Age at first CI (month) | Laterality | Pre-CI assessment | Post-CI CAP score | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABR (dB) | OAE | ASSR at 500 Hz (dB) | CAP score | 3 m | 6 m | 12 m | 24 m | 36 m | ||||
| SB10-23 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 21 | Bilateral, | B) NR | L) response (+) | R) 105 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6 | 7 |
| SH132-273 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 22 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 110 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 7 | |
| SB22-51 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 26 | Bilateral, | B) NR | L) response (+) | R) 75 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 7 | |
| SB204-398 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 13 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 80 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | |
| SH81-185 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 25 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | NA | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4 | |
| SB239-463 | c.2521G > A: p.Glu841Lys | 14 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 65 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 | ||
| SB239-464 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 14 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 80 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 5 | ||
| SH195-443 | c.3192C > G: p.Tyr1064Ter | 24 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 85 | 1 | 3 | FU loss | |||
| SH234-547 | c.5816G > A: p.Arg1939Gln | 15 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 90 | 0 | 3 | ||||
| AJ2-3 | c.5534G > A: p.Gly1845Glu | 18 | Bilateral, | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 100 | 0 | 4 | 4 | |||
| SH230-538 | c.4227 + 5G > C | Scheduled | NA | B) NR | B) response (+) | R) 75 | 0 | |||||
NR, no response; NA, not applicable
Fig. 4Average CAP scores of CI recipients. Audiologic performances of the two subgroups (early-CI and late-CI) at pre- and post-CI were analyzed longitudinally (p = 0.04 and 0.08 at post-CI 3 mo and 6 mo respectively). CAP is composed of a nonlinear, hierarchical scale with eight categories: (0) Displays no awareness of environmental sounds; (1) awareness of environmental sounds; (2) responds to speech sounds; (3) recognizes environmental sounds; (4) discriminates at least two speech sounds; (5) understands common phrases without lip-reading; (6) understands conversation without lip-reading with a familiar talker; (7) can use telephone with a familiar talker