Objective: To report the phenotypic characterization of monozygotic twins with mutations encoding progranulin (PGRN).
Methods:We studied a twin pair with an exon 4 gene deletion in the PGRN gene. Both twins had clinical and neuropsychological examinations as well as structural MRI and fluorodeoxyglucose PET (FDG-PET) scans. PGRN gene sequencing was performed followed by progranulin ELISA in plasma.Results: Both twins manifested symptoms within 3 years of each other, with early behavioral, language, dysexecutive, and memory problems. MRI and FDG-PET imaging demonstrated a strikingly similar topography of findings with clear left hemisphere predominance. Serum progranulin levels in both were well below those from a normal population sample.
Conclusions:Compared with the heterogeneity seen in many families with PGRN mutations, these monozygotic twins demonstrated strong clinical, neuroimaging, and serum progranulin level similarities, demonstrating the importance of shared genetic profiles beyond environmental influences in the symptomatic expression of the disease. Neurology Familial frontotemporal dementia (FTD) due to mutations in progranulin (PGRN) has been associated with a broad spectrum of phenotypic variability, including behavioral variant FTD, primary progressive aphasia, corticobasal syndrome, an anterograde amnesic disorder similar to Alzheimer disease dementia, and a syndrome resembling Lewy body dementia. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] There has been a wide range in age at onset, implying probable nongenetic as well as individual differences in disease expression along with additional modifying factors such as single nucleotide polymorphisms.8 Monozygotic twins provide a unique opportunity to better understand the manifestations of autosomal dominant inherited neurodegenerative diseases.We report the clinical, neuropsychological, structural, and functional neuroimaging findings in a monozygotic twin pair with a PGRN mutation and a frontotemporal lobar degeneration spectrum phenotype. Clinical and neuropsychological evaluation. Because of the differences in the subjects' age at onset and the timing of their evaluations, their neurologic, neuropsychological, and neuroimaging materials were analyzed to match data at similar points in their course to allow comparisons. For the neuropsychological data, their profiles were separated into 4 separate cognitive domains and