2021
DOI: 10.1097/mcd.0000000000000385
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Report of an unusual association of hydrosyringomyelia with Gabriele-de Vries syndrome in an Asian-Indian patient

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Analyzing the clinical symptoms of 29 patients with Gabriele de Vries syndrome caused by YY1 gene mutation (Balakrishnan & Ranganath, 2021;Carminho-Rodrigues et al, 2020;Dos Santos et al, 2022;Khamirani et al, 2022;Koruga et al, 2023;Morales-Rosado et al, 2018;Tan et al, 2021), we discovered that craniofacial deformities were common in all patients. The most common feature is a broad forehead.…”
Section: Individual Id Sex Genotype Exonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analyzing the clinical symptoms of 29 patients with Gabriele de Vries syndrome caused by YY1 gene mutation (Balakrishnan & Ranganath, 2021;Carminho-Rodrigues et al, 2020;Dos Santos et al, 2022;Khamirani et al, 2022;Koruga et al, 2023;Morales-Rosado et al, 2018;Tan et al, 2021), we discovered that craniofacial deformities were common in all patients. The most common feature is a broad forehead.…”
Section: Individual Id Sex Genotype Exonmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To date, more than 30 cases of GADEVS with an aberration of the YY1 gene have been reported in the literature. [2][3][4][5][6][7][9][10][11][12][13] Including our case (p.His377Arg), approximately 80% of these patients have loss-of-function mutations in the zinc fingers, 6 which is a DNA-binding domain of the YY1 gene (Figure 2). Missense mutations were the most common (63.3%), followed by frameshift mutations (26.7%), nonsense mutations (6.7%), and in-frame deletions (3.3%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…2,4 The prevalence of each clinical phenotype and characteristic facial feature is shown as a fraction of the total number of cases with available data (Figure 3a). [2][3][4][5][6][7][9][10][11][12][13] All patients reported to date showed various dysmorphic facial features; however, these could not be considered diagnosisspecific (Fig. 3b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%