| Literature DB >> 35052492 |
László Madar1,2, Lilla Juhász3, Zsuzsanna Szűcs1,2, Lóránt Kerkovits4, Mariann Harangi3, István Balogh1,5.
Abstract
Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is one of the most common autosomal, dominantly inherited diseases affecting cholesterol metabolism, which, in the absence of treatment, leads to the development of cardiovascular complications. The disease is still underdiagnosed, even though an early diagnosis would be of great importance for the patient to receive proper treatment and to prevent further complications. No studies are available describing the genetic background of Hungarian FH patients. In this work, we present the clinical and molecular data of 44 unrelated individuals with suspected FH. Sequencing of five FH-causing genes (LDLR, APOB, PCSK9, LDLRAP1 and STAP1) has been performed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). In cases where a copy number variation (CNV) has been detected by NGS, confirmation by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) has also been performed. We identified 47 causal or potentially causal (including variants of uncertain significance) LDLR and APOB variants in 44 index patients. The most common variant in the APOB gene was the c.10580G>A p.(Arg3527Gln) missense alteration, this being in accordance with literature data. Several missense variants in the LDLR gene were detected in more than one index patient. LDLR variants in the Hungarian population largely overlap with variants detected in neighboring countries.Entities:
Keywords: APOB; FH; Hungary; LDLR; NGS; familial hypercholesterolemia; next-generation sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35052492 PMCID: PMC8775528 DOI: 10.3390/genes13010153
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Clinical and phenotypic data in Hungarian patients with APOB variants and detailed summary of APOB variants.
| Patient ID | Exon | Variant at cDNA Level | Variant at | Variant Type | ACMG | TC (mmol/L) | LDL-C (mmol/L) | Age | Gender | BMI | Dutch Score | Xanthoma, Xanthelasma | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | 26 | c.8213T>A | p.Ile2738Lys | missense | VUS | 8.1 | 5.72 | 69 | F | 22.5 | 11 | - | this study |
| 4 | 26 | c.10438A>G | p.Lys3480Glu | missense | VUS | 8.0 | 5.3 | 65 | F | 25.5 | 13 | - | this study |
| 30 | 26 | c.10580G>A | p.Arg3527Gln | missense | Likely Pathogenic | 7.66 | 5.51 | 60 | F | 29.9 | 11 | - | [ |
| 37 | 26 | c.10580G>A | p.Arg3527Gln | missense | Likely Pathogenic | 8.3 | 6.0 | 51 | F | 30.1 | 14 | - | [ |
| 1 | 26 | c.10580G>A | p.Arg3527Gln | missense | Likely Pathogenic | 6.9 | 4.6 | 78 | F | N/A | 10 | - | [ |
| 39 | 26 | c.10580G>A | p.Arg3527Gln | missense | Likely Pathogenic | 8.1 | 5.2 | 61 | F | 23.5 | 4 | - | [ |
| 29 | 29 | c.13242delG | p.Leu4415* | frameshift | VUS/Likely Pathogenic | 5.62 | 7.3 | 51 | M | 26.3 | 16 | - | SCV001357780 |
Clinical and phenotypic data on Hungarian patients with LDLR variants and detailed summary of LDLR variants—patients with small-scale LDLR alterations.
| Patient ID | Exon | Variant at cDNA Level | Variant at Protein Level | Variant Type | ACMG Classification | TC (mmol/L) | LDL-C (mmol/L) | Age | Gender | BMI | Dutch Score | Xanthoma, xanthelasma | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 43 | promoter | c.-153C>T | p.? | point | VUS/Likely Pathogenic | 9 | 6.13 | 21 | F | 22 | 13 | - | [ |
| 10 | 2 | c.82G>T | p.Glu28* | nonsense | Pathogenic | 9.07 | 7.18 | 33 | F | 24.6 | 14 | - | [ |
| 16 | 2 | c.82G>T | p.Glu28* | nonsense | Pathogenic | 13.3 | 10.23 | 53 | F | 34.7 | 18 | - | [ |
| 35 | 4 | c.337G>T | p.Glu113* | nonsense | Pathogenic | 12.1 | 9.25 | 36 | M | 28.1 | 16 | - | [ |
| 25 | 4 | c.534T>G | p.Asp178Glu | missense | Pathogenic | 4.2 | 2.4 | 48 | M | 27.8 | 11 | - | [ |
| 41 | 4 | c.654_656delTGG | p.Gly219del | in-frame deletion | Pathogenic | 13 | n/a | 48 | M | 24.7 | 2 | - | [ |
| 5 | 4 | c.662A>G | p.Asp221Gly | missense | Pathogenic | 5.6 | 3.8 | 66 | F | 25.2 | 2 | - | [ |
| 20 | 4 | c.662A>G | p.Asp221Gly | missense | Pathogenic | 12 | 8.81 | 50 | F | 22 | 18 | - | [ |
| 22 | intron 4 | c.694+2 T>C | p.? | splicing | Pathogenic | 9.4 | 9.4 | 47 | M | 34.2 | 17 | - | [ |
| 32 | intron 4 | c.694+2 T>C | p.? | splicing | Pathogenic | 9 | 7.4 | 50 | M | 26.3 | 16 | - | [ |
| 27 | 6 | c.858C>A | p.Ser286Arg | missense | Pathogenic | 9.2 | 6.93 | 34 | F | 22.9 | 13 | - | [ |
| 8 | 6 | c.940_940+14del | p.? | splicing | Pathogenic | 10.4 | 7.9 | 30 | F | 25.8 | 14 | - | [ |
| 11 | 6 | c.940_940+14del | p.? | splicing | Pathogenic | 10 | 10.5 | 14 | F | 22.4 | 17 | - | [ |
| 23 | 6 | c.940_940+14del | p.? | splicing | Pathogenic | 11.4 | 8.7 | 53 | F | 22.2 | 17 | - | [ |
| 9 | 7 | c.1048C>T | p.Arg350* | nonsense | Pathogenic | 11.9 | 9.75 | 52 | F | n/a | 16 | n/a | [ |
| 36 | 8 | c.1130G>A | p.Cys377Tyr | missense | Pathogenic | 9.4 | 8.5 | 18 | M | n/a | 14 | - | [ |
| 19 | 8 | c.1130G>A | p.Cys377Tyr | missense | Pathogenic | 8.4 | 6.2 | 18 | F | 19.6 | 12 | - | [ |
| 24 | 8 | c.1130G>A | p.Cys377Tyr | missense | Pathogenic | 13.3 | 10.56 | 60 | F | 23 | 18 | - | [ |
| 21 | 8 | c.1618G>A | p.Ala540Thr | missense | Pathogenic | n/a | n/a | 54 | F | n/a | n/a | n/a | [ |
| 42 | 8 | c.1618G>A | p.Ala540Thr | missense | Pathogenic | 9.1 | 6.65 | 28 | M | 26.9 | 13 | - | [ |
| 34 | intron 11 | c.1706-2A>G | p.? | splicing | Likely Pathogenic | 8.2 | 5.8 | 50 | F | 30.5 | 12 | - | this study |
| 26 | 12 | c.1775G>A | p.Gly592Glu | missense | Pathogenic | 10.3 | 7.7 | 45 | F | 19.8 | 13 | - | [ |
| 31 | 12 | c.1775G>A | p.Gly592Glu | missense | Pathogenic | 10.2 | 7.62 | 53 | F | n/a | 13 | - | [ |
| 3 | 13 | c.1865A>G | p.Asp622Gly | missense | Pathogenic | 9.6 | 7.3 | 67 | M | 24.3 | 8 | - | [ |
| 6 | 13 | c.1865A>G | p.Asp622Gly | missense | Pathogenic | 10 | 7.9 | 60 | F | 27.8 | 11 | + | [ |
| 2 | 14 | c.2000G>A | p.Cys667Tyr | missense | Pathogenic | 12.9 | 10.4 | 64 | F | 30.1 | 10 | - | [ |
| 17 | 14 | c.2000G>A | p.Cys667Tyr | missense | Pathogenic | 8.1 | 5.4 | 40 | F | n/a | 12 | - | [ |
| 15 | 14 | c.2054C>T | p.Pro685Leu | missense | Pathogenic | 9.6 | 7.6 | 22 | M | 21.1 | 14 | - | [ |
| 40 | 14 | c.2054C>T | p.Pro685Leu | missense | Pathogenic | 9.6 | 7.14 | 56 | F | 24.2 | 19 | + | [ |
| 18 | 17 | c.2416dupG | p.Val806fs*11 | frameshift | Pathogenic | 8.1 | 5.4 | 58 | F | n/a | 12 | - | [ |
| 44 | 17 | c.2416dupG | p.Val806fs*11 | frameshift | Pathogenic | 10 | 3.1 | 58 | F | 22.6 | 9 | - | [ |
| 14 | intron 17 | c.2547+1G>A | p.? | splicing | Pathogenic | 11.1 | 8.9 | 66 | M | 24.8 | 18 | - | [ |
Clinical and phenotypic data on Hungarian patients with LDLR variants and detailed summary of LDLR variants—patients with compound heterozygous LDLR variants.
| Patient ID | Exon | Variant at cDNA Level | Variant at Protein Level | Variant Type | ACMG | TC (mmol/L) | LDL-C (mmol/L) | Age | Gender | BMI | Dutch Score | Xanthoma, xanthelasma | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12 | 11 | c.1618G>A | p.Ala540Thr | missense | Pathogenic | 21.7 | n/a | 26 | F | 29.36 | 20 | + | [ |
| 7 | c.941-190_c.1061-270del | ? | large | Pathogenic | This study | ||||||||
| 13 | 4 | c.337G>T | p.Glu113* | nonsense | Pathogenic | 23.7 | n/a | 38 | M | 20.15 | 20 | + | [ |
| 11 | c.1618G>A | p.Ala540Thr | missense | Pathogenic | [ | ||||||||
| 28 | 6 | c.862G>A | p.Glu288Lys | missense | Pathogenic | 10.4 | 10.8 | 13 | M | 29.4 | 17 | - | [ |
| 15 | c.2167delG | p.Glu723Arg | frameshift | Pathogenic | [ |
Clinical and phenotypic data in Hungarian patients with LDLR variants and detailed summary of LDLR variants—patients with LDLR CNVs.
| Patient ID | Exon | Variant Type | ACMG | TC (mmol/L) | LDL-C (mmol/L) | Age | Gender | BMI | Dutch Score | Xanthoma, xanthelasma | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38 | exon 4–8 | duplication | Pathogenic | 16.6 | 9.8 | 69 | F | 25.7 | 24 | + | [ |
| 33 | exon 3–8 | deletion | Pathogenic | n/a | n/a | 74 | F | 40.4 | 10 | - | [ |
Figure 1This figure shows the detected LDLR variants and their localization in the gene.
Figure 2Pedigree of patients 13 and 12. (A) Patient 13 family members. The father of the proband could not be tested. (B) Patient 12 family members. Three generations were tested.
Figure 3Breakpoint determination of the deletion of exon 7. (A) Coverage-based CNV from NGS data. The red arrow indicates the complete heterozygous deletion of exon 7 covered by 2 amplicons (Patient 12). (B) The result of Sanger sequencing of the mutant allele amplified by the PCR reaction. The short homologue DNA sequence is highlighted in the frame and highlighted in red. (C) The wild-type and mutant allele without exon 7. The mutant allele contains only one copy of a short homologue DNA sequence.
Figure 4Coverage-based CNV detection in the LDLR gene. (A) In patient 38, the duplication of exons 4–8 was detected based on coverage data. The green arrow indicates the location and size of the duplication. (B) In patient 33, the deletion of exons 3–8 was detected based on coverage data. The red arrow indicates the location and size of the deletion.