No abstract

Intellectual development disorder (IDD) is characterized by a general deficit in intellectual and adaptive functioning. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in studying the genetic structure of IDD. Of particular difficulty are patients with non-specific IDD, for whom it is impossible to establish a clinical diagnosis without complex genetic diagnostics. We examined 198 patients with non-specific IDD from 171 families using whole-exome sequencing and chromosome microarray analysis. Hereditary forms of IDD account for at least 35.7% of non-specific IDD, of which 26.9% are monogenic forms. Variants in the genes associated with the BAF (SWI/SNF) complex were the most frequently identified. We were unable to identify phenotypic features that would allow differential diagnosis of monogenic and microstructural chromosomal rearrangements in non-specific IDD at the stage of clinical examination, but due to its higher efficiency, exome sequencing should be the diagnostic method of the highest priority study after the standard examination of patients with NIDD in Russia.

Background: Spastic paraplegia type 30 (SPG30) caused by KIF1A mutations was first reported in 2011 and was initially considered a very rare autosomal recessive (AR) form. In the last years, thanks to the development of massive parallel sequencing, SPG30 proved to be a rather common autosomal dominant (AD) form of familial or sporadic spastic paraplegia (SPG),, with a wide range of phenotypes: pure and complicated. The aim of our study is to detect AD SPG30 cases and to examine their molecular and clinical characteristics for the first time in the Russian population. Methods: Clinical, genealogical and molecular methods were used. Molecular methods included massive parallel sequencing (MPS) of custom panel 'spastic paraplegias' with 62 target genes complemented by familial Sanger sequencing. One case was detected by the whole-exome sequencing. Results: AD SPG30 was detected in 10 unrelated families, making it the 3rd (8.4%) most common SPG form in the cohort of 118 families. No AR SPG30 cases were detected. In total, 9 heterozygous KIF1A mutations were detected, with 4 novel and 5 known mutations. All the mutations were located within KIF1A motor domain. Six cases had pure phenotypes, of which 5 were familial, where 2 familial cases demonstrated incomplete penetrance, early onset and slow relatively benign SPG course. All 4 complicated cases were caused by novel mutations without familial history. The phenotypes varied from severe in two patients (e.g. lack of walking, pronounced mental retardation) to relatively mild non-disabling symptoms in two others. Conclusion: AD SPG30 is one of the most common forms of SPG in Russia, the disorder has pronounced clinical variability while pure familial cases represent a significant part.

Congenital myasthenic syndrome-22 (CMS22, OMIM 616224) is a very rare recessive hereditary disorder. At the moment, ten CMS22 patients are described, with the disorder caused by nine different Loss-of-Function mutations and 14 gross deletions in the PREPL gene. The materials for our study were DNA samples of five family members: two patients with myasthenia, their healthy sibling and parents. Clinical exome analysis was carried out for one patient, then the whole family was checked for target variants with Sanger sequencing, quantitative multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification, and chromosome 2 microsatellite markers study. To determine the functional significance of the splicing variant, we applied the minigene assay. The cause of the proband’s disorder is a compound heterozygous state of two previously non-described pathogenic PREPL variants: a c.1528C>T (p.(Arg510Ter)) nonsense mutation and a c.2094G>T pseudo-missense variant, which, simultaneously with a p.(Lys698Asn) amino acid substitution, affects splicing, leading to exon 14 skipping in mRNA. The second patient’s disorder was caused by a homozygous nonsense c.1528C>T (p.(Arg510Ter)) mutation due to maternal uniparental disomy (UPD) of chromosome 2. In this study, we describe a unique case, in which two siblings with a rare disorder have different pathologic genotypes.

No abstract