| Literature DB >> 34803088 |
Yasuyoshi Kimura1,2, Akira Nishikawa1, Akihiro Hashiguchi3, Masaki Etoh4, Akiko Yoshimura3, Kanako Asai1, Noriko Miyashita1, Hiroshi Takashima3, Hisae Sumi1, Takashi Naka1.
Abstract
Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is a common hereditary peripheral polyneuropathy encompassing distinct monogenetic disorders. Pathogenic mutations in mitofusin 2 (MFN2) are the most frequent cause of its axonal type, CMT type 2A, with diverse phenotypes. We herein report a Japanese patient with a novel heterozygous MFN2 pathogenic variant (c.740 G>C, p.R247P) and severe CMT phenotypes, including progressive muscle weakness, optic atrophy, urinary inconsistency, and restrictive pulmonary dysfunction with eventration of the diaphragm that developed over her 60-year disease course. Our case expands the clinico-genetic features of MFN2-related CMT and highlights the need to evaluate infrequent manifestations during long-term care of CMT patients.Entities:
Keywords: Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease; diaphragmatic weakness; hereditary motor sensory neuropathy; mitofusin 2; neurogenic bladder; restrictive pulmonary dysfunction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34803088 PMCID: PMC9259307 DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.6487-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intern Med ISSN: 0918-2918 Impact factor: 1.282
Figure 1.Nerve conduction study taken at 60 years after the onset. CMAPs and SNAPs were not evoked except for in a median sensory nerve. The amplitude of the median sensory nerve evoked by stimulation at the wrist was 1.5 μV. Nerve conduction velocities were 47.3 m/s from finger to palm, 50.5 m/s from palm to wrist, and 47.0 m/s from wrist to elbow.
Figure 2.(A) Chest radiograph taken at 44, 59, and 61 years after the onset. (B) Brain and spine T2-weighted MRI taken at 60 and 61 years after the onset. (C) I-123 MIBG scans taken at 61 years after the onset. The early and late H/M ratios were 2.78 and 2.35, respectively. The washout ratio was 41.8%.
List of Target Genes for Analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sixty-four genes listed above and eight candidate genes were analyzed.
Figure 3.Family tree. Genomes of the proband and healthy siblings (arrow) were analyzed.