| Literature DB >> 33952291 |
Feng-Juan Gao1,2,3, Dan-Dan Wang1,2,3, Jian-Kang Li4,5, Fang-Yuan Hu1,2,3, Ping Xu1,2,3, Fang Chen4,6,7, Yu-He Qi1, Wei Liu1, Wei Li4,8, Sheng-Hai Zhang1,2,3, Qing Chang1,2,3, Ge-Zhi Xu9,10,11, Ji-Hong Wu12,13,14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The retinoid isomerohydrolase RPE65 has received considerable attention worldwide since a successful clinical gene therapy was approved in 2017 as the first treatment for vision loss associated with RPE65-mediated inherited retinal disease. Identifying patients with RPE65 mutations is a prerequisite to assessing the patients' eligibility to receive RPE65-targeted gene therapies, and it is necessary to identify individuals who are most likely to benefit from gene therapies. This study aimed to investigate the RPE65 mutations frequency in the Chinese population and to determine the genetic and clinical characteristics of these patients.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese population; Genotype–phenotype correlations; Inherited retinal dystrophy; Next-generation sequencing; RPE65 gene mutations
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33952291 PMCID: PMC8097799 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-021-01807-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis ISSN: 1750-1172 Impact factor: 4.123
RPE65 variants identified in this cohort of patients
| Nucleotide change | Amino acid change | Mutation type | Exon/intron | Patients | ACMG category | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| c.1399C>G | p.Pro467Ala | Missense | E13 | F1-1, F3-1 | P | [ |
| c.272G>A | p.Arg91Gln | Missense | E4 | F2-1 | P | [ |
| c.271C>T | p.Arg91Trp | Missense | E4 | F2-1, F16-1 | P | [ |
| c.1338G>T | p.Arg446Ser | Missense | E12 | F5-1, F7-1, F7-2 | P | [ |
| c.1543C>T | p.Arg515Trp | Missense | E14 | F6-1, F6-2 | P | [ |
| c.1444G>A | p.Asp482Asn | Missense | E13 | F6-1, F6-2, F17-1 | LP | Novel |
| c.1255C>T | p.Pro419Ser | Missense | E12 | F8-1 | VUS | Novel |
| c.202C>T | p.His68Tyr | Missense | E3 | F8-1 | P | [ |
| c.1590C>A | p.Phe530Leu | Missense | E14 | F9-1 | P | [ |
| c.997G>C | p.Gly333Arg | Missense | E9 | F10-1 | P | [ |
| c.334T>A | p.Cys112Ser | Missense | E4 | F10-1 | VUS | Novel |
| c.131G>A | p.Arg44Gln | Missense | E3 | F12-1 | P | [ |
| c.200T>G | p.Leu67Arg | Missense | E3 | F13-1 | P | [ |
| c.1304A>G | p.Tyr435Cys | Missense | E12 | F13-1 | P | [ |
| c.1039C>T | p.Arg347Cys | Missense | E10 | F14-1 | VUS | Novel |
| c.1078G>C | p.Ala360Pro | Missense | E10 | F14-1 | LP | [ |
| c.493C>T | p.Gln165* | Nonsense | E5 | F4-1, F4-2 | P | [ |
| c.1380G>A | p.Trp460* | Nonsense | E13 | F15-1 | P | [ |
| c.94+2T>A | - | Splicing | I2 | F1-1 | LP | Novel |
| c.998+1G>A | - | Splicing | I10 | F3-1 | P | [ |
| c.354-2A>G | - | Splicing | I5 | F7-1, F7-2 | LP | Novel |
| c.858+1del | - | Splicing | I9 | F9-1, F12-1 | P | [ |
| c.376del | p.Val126fs*1 | Frameshift | EX5 | F16-1 | LP | Novel |
| c.806_809delinsTGGAGCCATGAAG | p.SerLeu269MetGluProTer | Frameshift | EX8 | F17-1 | P | Novel |
| c.837del | p.Phe279Leufs*46 | Frameshift | EX8 | F11-1 | LP | Novel |
| c.886del | p.Arg296fs | Frameshift | EX9 | F15-1 | LP | Novel |
F: family; E: Exon; I: Intron; P: Pathogenic; LP: Likely pathogenic; VUS: variants of uncertain significance
Fig. 1a Distribution of different types of variants in the RPE65 identified in this study and reported in the Chinese population. b Distribution of the RPE65 mutations reported in the Chinese population. The number of mutations located in different exons is marked in black font, and those in introns are marked in red font. c Distribution of different types of variants in the RPE65 identified in LCA, RP, and FAP patients reported in the Chinese population. d. RPE65 variants associated with LCA, RP and FAP. A total of 39 variants have been reported to be associated with LCA, 23 with RP, and 8 with FAP. p.Pro467Ala was associated with LCA, RP and FAP, p.Arg44Gln was associated with both LCA and FAP, six variants were associated with both RP and LCA, and three variants were associated with both RP and FAP. LCA: leber congenital amaurosis; RP: retinitis pigmentosa; FAP: fundus albipunctatus
Clinical characteristics of the 20 patients identified in this study
| Patients | Age (years) /sex | BCVA LogMAR | Refraction | Age at disease presentation (years) | ERG | Fundus | Others | Diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1-1 | 12/F | 0/0.05 | + 0.5/ + 0.75 | Congenital | Undetectable rod ERG, subnormal cone ERG | a | No | FAP |
| F2-1 | 6/M | 0.60/0.82 | − 0.5/− 2.0 | Congenital | Extinct | a, b | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F3-1 | 7/M | 0.40/0.40 | − 4.0/− 3.75 | Congenital | Extinct | N | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F4-1 | 15/M | 0.52/0.52 | − 3.5/− 3.0 | Congenital | Extinct | a, b | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F4-2 | 3/F | 1.00/1.00 | + 0.5/ + 0.75 | Congenital | Extinct | N | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F5-1 | 9/F | 1.30/0.70 | + 4.5/ + 4.5 | Congenital | Extinct | a | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F6-1 | 10/M | 0.22/0.40 | − / + 0.5 | 3 | Profoundly attenuated rod and cone ERGs | N | No | RP 20 |
| F6-2 | 9/F | 0.40/0.40 | − / + 0.25 | 3 | Profoundly attenuated rod and cone ERGs | a | No | RP 20 |
| F7-1 | 29/M | 1.00/3.00 | – | Congenital | Extinct | b | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F7-2 | 31/M | 1.3/1.3 | – | Congenital | Extinct | b | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F8-1 | 7/F | 1.00/0.13 | + 1.5/ + 2.25 | Congenital | Extinct | a | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F9-1 | 11/M | 0.52/0.40 | − 0.5/− 0.5 | Congenital | Profoundly attenuated rod and cone ERGs | a | No | RP 20 |
| F10-1 | 49/F | 3.00/3.00 | – | Congenital | Extinct | b | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F11-1 | 20/M | 1.00/1.00 | − 2.25/− 1.75 | Congenital | Profoundly attenuated rod and cone ERGs | N | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F12-1 | 31/F | 1.00/1.00 | − 1.0/− 1.25 | Congenital | Extinct | b | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F13-1 | 9/F | 0.52/0.40 | + 2.5/ + 2.25 | Congenital | Extinct | N | Nystagmus, oculo-digital sign | LCA 2 |
| F14-1 | 5/F | 0.60/0.70 | + 2.25/ + 3.0 | Congenital | Extinct | N | Nystagmus, esotropia | LCA 2 |
| F15-1 | 5/M | 0.82/1.00 | + 2.0/ + 2.25 | Congenital | Extinct | N | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F16-1 | 30/M | 2.00/2.00 | − /− | Congenital | Extinct | N | Nystagmus | LCA 2 |
| F17-1 | 30/F | 0.30/0.40 | -4.0/-4.5 | Congenital | Profoundly attenuated rod and cone ERGs | N | No | RP 20 |
F: family; R: right; L: left; LP = 3 LogMAR; HM = 2 LogMAR; a. white or white-yellow dots; b. Bone-spicule-like pigment; deposits; N: no a or b; LCA: Leber congenital amaurosis; RP: retinitis pigmentosa; FAP: fundus albipunctatus
Fig. 2a Color fundus photographs and spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) of patients showed bone spicule-like pigment deposits (BSLP). The image in the upper right is the corresponding enlarged figure showing BSLP in the fundus (black arrow). b Color fundus photograph and SD-OCT of patients without BDLP or white-yellow dots (WYD). The image in the upper right is the corresponding enlarged figure showing pigment dispersion in the mid-periphery. c Color fundus photograph and SD-OCT of patients with WYD (black arrow). The image in the upper right is the corresponding enlarged figure showing WYD scattered in the periphery of the retina. d Number of patients (black font) and their corresponding mean ages (blue font) in different groups. Group 1: patients with WYD. Group 2: patients without WYD. Group 3: patients with BDLP. Group 4: patients without BDLP. Group 5: patients without WYD and BDLP. Group 6: patients with WYD and BDLP. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01
Fig. 3Overview of RPE65 mutations reported to date in the Chinese population and this study. Blank: missense mutation. Blue: splicing mutation. Red: frameshift mutation. Green: nonsense mutation. Variants in the black box are mutations associated with LCA. Variants in the blue box are mutations associated with RP. Variants in the green box are mutations associated with FAP. LCA: leber congenital amaurosis; RP: retinitis pigmentosa; FAP: fundus albipunctatus