We want to answer the letter Olesen et al addressed to Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics after the publication of our report on MOG1 as a new susceptibility gene for Brugada syndrome (BrS).Olesen et al 1 screened MOG1 in 23 patients with BrS and in 197 patients with early-onset lone atrial fibrillation, and they identified the nonsense variation c.181GϾT (p.E61X) in 4 patients with atrial fibrillation, resulting in a premature stop codon that truncates the protein upstream of the region that interacts with Na v 1.5. They also identified this variant in 2 of 488 healthy individuals (ie, in 0.4% of control subjects vs 1.8% of patients). As indicated by Olesen et al, we reported this nonsense variant at the American Heart Association 2009 scientific sessions, 2 in an asymptomatic male patient with a type 1 BrS ECG. This variant was thought to be relevant because it had not been found in 100 control individuals. We later found it in 3 other BrS probands, positive or negative for the SCN5A mutation, and in some family members; in addition, we found it in 2 (0.7%) of 281 controls. We, thus, assumed that this variant was a polymorphism and focused our study on the missense p.E83D. The frequency for the nonsense variant tended to be higher in our BrS patient cohort (4 [1.26%] of 318) compared with the control population (2 [0.7%] of 281).By using patch-clamp analysis in a heterologous expression system, Olesen and coworkers 1 showed that coexpression of wild-type MOG1 and p.E61X-MOG1, to mimic the heterozygous condition, does not cause loss of function of the sodium current, showing that a complete loss of 1 MOG1 allele is not pathogenic by itself. We agree with this conclusion, reinforced by the fact that 2 of our BrS patients, father and son, were both carriers of a nonsense mutation in SCN5A (p.W193X) and of the MOG1 nonsense variant (p.E61X). The proband was diagnosed at the age of 33 years after being referred for chest pain. The results of coronarography were normal, but the ECG showed type 2 BrS. An ajmaline test revealed a type 1 BrS pattern, and a polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) was induced at electrophysiological stimulation. His 70-year-old father was asymptomatic and had a normal ECG result. The Ajmaline test was refused by the patient.The question raised by Olesen and colleagues 1 directly concerns the role of MOG1 as a physiological modulator of the sodium current. In vitro experiments strongly suggested that MOG1 modulates Na v 1.5 activity. To summarize, 3 different groups repeatedly demonstrated the ability of MOG1 to increase the sodium current in a heterologous system, after cotransfection with Na v 1.5 1 or in cells overexpressing Na v 1.5. 3,4 This observation was confirmed in neonatal rat cardiomyocytes. 3 Then, our study demonstrated that the p.E83D-MOG1 mutant abolishes the effect of MOG1 on the sodium current in Na v 1.5-stable human embryonic kidney (HEK) cells and has a dominant-negative effect on wild-type MOG1. Our silencing experiments confirmed the role of MOG1 on the cardiac ...