2011
DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2011-100050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Biallelic MLH1 SNP cDNA expression or constitutional promoter methylation can hide genomic rearrangements causing Lynch syndrome

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
58
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 73 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
1
58
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Heterozygous MUTYH mutations were not identified in the remaining 84 index patients, for which somatic mutations or further germline pathomechanisms, for example, large genomic rearrangements such as inversions in the MMR genes have to be considered. 3,[26][27][28] In the control cohort the MUTYH mutation frequency of 1.24% was comparable to the frequencies of 0%-4.8% reported in the general population. 12,22,29 As MAP can manifest in an extremely variable phenotype, MUTYH mutation analysis should also be considered in patients with a low number of adenomas, early-onset or synchronous or metachronous CRC and in patients with MSS tumours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Heterozygous MUTYH mutations were not identified in the remaining 84 index patients, for which somatic mutations or further germline pathomechanisms, for example, large genomic rearrangements such as inversions in the MMR genes have to be considered. 3,[26][27][28] In the control cohort the MUTYH mutation frequency of 1.24% was comparable to the frequencies of 0%-4.8% reported in the general population. 12,22,29 As MAP can manifest in an extremely variable phenotype, MUTYH mutation analysis should also be considered in patients with a low number of adenomas, early-onset or synchronous or metachronous CRC and in patients with MSS tumours.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 73%
“…However, in 10-15% of our cases clinically suspected of LS, the MSI-H and abnormal IHC results in the tumours cannot be explained by MMR germline mutation analyses. 2,3 Germline mutations in the human Mut Y homolog (MUTYH; MIM# 604933) also lead to a predisposition to CRC and adenomas but with an autosomal recessive inheritance. The clinical picture of MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP, MIM' 608456) is extremely variable and ranges from severe polyposis coli to attenuated forms with late age of onset or few adenomas or CRC, which creates phenotypic overlap with LS.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[12][13][14][15] However, a handful of familial cases with an MLH1 epimutation have been reported in which transmission of the epimutation between generations has been shown to occur in both non-Mendelian 14 and autosomal dominant patterns, with the latter linked to localized cis-acting genetic anomalies. 16,17 In a Caucasian family from Western Australia (WA Family 16), dominant transmission of a mosaic MLH1 epimutation was demonstrated through three successive generations linked to a particular haplotype bearing two single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in tandem; promoter substitution c. À27C4A and missense variant c.85G4T (p.A29S) (according to coding reference sequence NM_000249.2). 17 The mosaic nature of the epimutation was observed as variable levels of somatic methylation and partial allelic losses of transcription among different tissues and carriers in the family.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…8 Approximately 40 index cases of constitutional MLH1 methylation have been reported. [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] However, the prevalence of MLH1 constitutional epimutations is still unknown. Most studies addressing this issue have enriched their sampling with patients affected with CRC showing loss of MLH1 protein expression.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…9,14,17,23 In a very few cases genetic alterations in cis (gross rearrangements and variants in the promoter region) have been identified as responsible for the methylation. 13,16,19 In these cases, an autosomal dominant pattern is readily observed. However, in most cases no genetic cause for the epimutation has been identified (reviewed in Hitchins and Ward 5 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%