Further support linking the 22q11.2 microduplication to an increased risk of bladder exstrophy and highlighting LZTR1 as a candidate gene. Issue 6 (1st May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lundin, Johanna; Markljung, Ellen; Baranowska Körberg, Izabella; Hofmeister, Wolfgang; Cao, Jia; Nilsson, Daniel; Holmdahl, Gundela; Barker, Gillian; Anderberg, Magnus; Vukojević, Vladana; Lindstrand, Anna; Nordenskjöld, Agneta
• Is Part Of: Molecular genetics & genomic medicine. Volume 7:Issue 6(2019)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2019-05-01
• Subjects: array‐CGH -- bladder exstrophy -- confocal microscopy -- exome sequencing -- fluorescence spectrometry -- LZTR1 -- microduplication; Medical genetics -- Periodicals; Genomics -- Periodicals; 616.042
• DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.666
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2324-9269

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The bladder exstrophy‐epispadias complex (BEEC) is a congenital malformation of the bladder and urethra. The underlying causes of this malformation are still largely unknown; however, aside from environment, genetics is thought to play an essential role. The recurrent 22q11.2 microduplication is the most persistently detected genetic aberration found in BEEC cases. Methods: We performed array comparative genomic hybridization (array‐CGH) analysis of 76 Swedish BEEC patients. Statistical analysis was performed on current dataset pooled with previously published data on the 22q11.2 microduplication in BEEC patients. We performed massive parallel sequencing (MPS) of the 22q11.2 region in 20 BEEC patients without the 22q11.2 microduplication followed by functional studies. Results: We identified three additional cases with the 22q11.2 microduplication. Pooling data from this study with previously published reports showed a statistically significant enrichment of the 22q11.2 microduplication in BEEC patients (2.61% in cases vs. 0.08% in controls; OR = 32.6; p = 8.7 × 10 −4 ). MPS of the 22q11.2 region in 20 BEEC patients without the 22q11.2 microduplication identified a novel variant in LZTR1 (p.Ser698Phe) in one patient. Functional evaluation of the LZTR1 p.Ser698Phe variant in live NIH 3T3 cells showed that the concentration and cytoplasmic mobility differ between the Lztr1wt and Lztr1mut, indicating a potential functional effect of the LZTR1mut . Conclusion: Our study further emphasizes the involvement of the 22q11.2 region in BEEC development and highlights LZTR1 as a candidate gene underlying the urogenital malformation. Abstract : By performing array‐CGH analysis of 76 Swedish BEEC patients and combining this new data with previously published data on the 22q11.2 microduplication in BEEC patients we show a statistically significant enrichment of the 22q11.2 microduplication in BEEC patients (2.61% in cases vs. 0.08% in controls; OR = 32.6; p = 8.7 × 10 −4 ). Massive parallel sequencing (MPS) of the 22q11.2 region in 20 BEEC patients without the 22q11.2 microduplication identified a novel variant in LZTR1 (p.Ser698Phe) in one patient. Functional evaluation of the LZTR1 p.Ser698Phe variant in live NIH 3T3 cells showed that the concentration and cytoplasmic mobility differ between the Lztr1wt and Lztr1mut, indicating a potential functional effect of the LZTR1mut.