目的:CACNA1H被认为是一个赋予癫痫易感性的基因。然而,携带意义不确定的CACNA1H错义变异体(VUS)的癫痫患者的预后未知.产生前瞻性队列以确定这些变异的有害影响并检查这些变异的存在是否影响癫痫患者的预后。
方法:本研究在西安市西京医院进行,中国。所有患者均随访至少1年。搜索先前报告的先前报告的变体。在一般人群中搜索Ensembl数据库中的变体。组合注释依赖性耗竭(CADD)用于评估变体的有害作用。采用Logistic回归和Cox回归进行数据分析。
结果:该研究包括176例有或没有CACNA1H变异的癫痫患者。在有错义变异的癫痫患者中,我们发现了35种不同的变种,包括33个具有不确定意义的变体和2个可能的良性变体。在来自该队列的变异体的CADD评分的分布之间没有观察到显著差异,在一般人口中,以及以前报告中发现的那些。在有错义变异的癫痫患者中,给患者服用抗癫痫药物(AED)的数量,有一级癫痫家族史,脑放射学检查结果异常的存在可能与预后较差相关。在整个队列中,癫痫的类型,施用的AED数量,脑放射学检查异常的存在与这些患者的预后相关。CACNA1H错义变异的有害作用或其存在与癫痫患者的预后无关。
结论:我们的研究结果表明,CACNA1H变异与多种癫痫综合征有关。然而,没有强有力的证据表明CACNA1H错义变异与某种类型的癫痫之间存在相关性.在我们的研究队列中,发现CACNA1H变异的有害作用和存在与癫痫患者的预后无关.这些发现表明,分类为VUS的CACNA1H错义变异可能不会影响癫痫的结局。
OBJECTIVE: CACNA1H is regarded as a gene conferring susceptibility to generalised epilepsy. However, the prognosis of epilepsy patients carrying the CACNA1H missense variants of uncertain significance (VUS) is unknown. A prospective cohort was generated to determine the deleterious effects of these variants and to check whether the presence of these variants affects the prognosis of epilepsy patients.
METHODS: This
study was conducted at Xijing Hospital in Xian, China. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Previous reports were searched for previously reported variants. Ensembl database was searched for variants in the general population. Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD) was used to evaluate the deleterious effect of variants. Logistic regression and Cox regression were used for data analysis.
RESULTS: The
study included 176 epilepsy patients with or without CACNA1H variants. In epilepsy patients with missense variants, we found 35 different variants, including 33 variants with uncertain significance and 2 likely benign variants. No significant difference was observed between the distribution of CADD scores of the variants from this cohort, of the general population, and of those found in previous reports. Among epilepsy patients with missense variants, the number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) administered to the patients, a first-degree family history of epilepsy, and possibly the presence of abnormalities in brain radiology findings were correlated with the poorer prognosis. Among the entire cohort, the type of epilepsy, number of AEDs administered, and presence of abnormalities in brain radiology findings were associated with the prognosis of these patients. The deleterious effect of CACNA1H missense variants or their presence was not related to the prognosis of epilepsy patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our
study suggest that CACNA1H variants are related to multiple epilepsy syndromes. However, there is no strong evidence of the correlation between CACNA1H missense variants and a certain type of epilepsy. In our
study cohort, both the deleterious effects and the presence of CACNA1H variants were found to be unrelated to the prognosis of patients with epilepsy. These findings suggest that CACNA1H missense variants that are classified as VUS might not influence the outcome of epilepsy.