SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Case Report: Novel mutations in <i>TBC1D24</i> are associated with autosomal dominant tonic-clonic and myoclonic epilepsy and recessive Parkinsonism, psychosis, and intellectual disability.

F1000Res · 2017-04-24

DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.10588.1PMID: 28663785

Open accessJournal Article; case-reportOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Mutations disrupting presynaptic protein TBC1D24 are associated with a variable neurological phenotype, including DOORS syndrome, myoclonic epilepsy, early-infantile epileptic encephalopathy, and non-syndromic hearing loss. In this report, we describe a family segregating autosomal dominant epilepsy, and a 37-year-old Caucasian female with a severe neurological phenotype including epilepsy, Parkinsonism, psychosis, visual and auditory hallucinations, gait ataxia and intellectual disability. Whole exome sequencing revealed two missense mutations in the TBC1D24 gene segregating within this family (c.1078C>T; p.Arg360Cys and c.404C>T; p.Pro135Leu). The female proband who presents with a severe neurological phenotype carries both of these mutations in a compound heterozygous state. The p.Pro135Leu variant, however, is present in the proband's mother and sibling as well, and is consistent with an autosomal dominant pattern linked to tonic-clonic and myoclonic epilepsy. In conclusion, we describe a single family in which TBC1D24 mutations cause expanded dominant and recessive phenotypes. In addition, we discuss and highlight that some variants in TBC1D24 might cause a dominant susceptibility to epilepsy.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.