SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Clinical Features and Novel Pathogenic Variants of Chinese Patients With McLeod Syndrome and Chorea-Acanthocytosis.

Mol Genet Genomic Med · 2024-09-01

DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.70015PMID: 39324427

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

BackgroundMcLeod syndrome (MLS) and chorea-acanthocytosis (ChAc) are exceedingly rare diseases characterized by a variety of movement disorders including chorea, dystonia, and Parkinsonism. Genetic analysis plays a key role in early and accurate diagnosis, but relevant variants are still under investigation. This study aims to explore new pathogenic variants in Chinese patients with MLS and ChAc and to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the clinical heterogeneity among these patients.MethodsEighteen Chinese patients who presented with choreatic movements with negative HTT genetic testing were identified and underwent targeted next-generation sequencing, verified by Sanger sequencing.ResultsTwo novel XK variants (c.970A>T, c.422_423del) were identified in three index MLS patients and six novel VPS13A variants (c.9219C>A, c.3467T>A, c.4208dup, c.9243_9246del, c.5364del, c.556-290_697-483del) in five index ChAc patients. One copy number variant of VPS13A (g.79827595_79828762del/c.556-290_697-483del) was firstly described in Chinese population.ConclusionAs the currently largest descriptive study of MLS and ChAc patients in China, this study expands on the clinical and genetic spectrum of XK and VPS13A, contributing to the clinical diagnosis of MLS and ChAc.

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.