Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Errata
Erratum
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Short Paper
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Practice: Correspondence
157 (
4
); 363-366
doi:
10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_3568_20

Genotype first approach & familial segregation analysis help in the elucidation of disease-causing variant for fucosidosis

Diagnostics Division, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting & Diagnostics, Hyderabad 500 039, India
Laboratory of Cell Cycle Regulation, Centre for DNA Fingerprinting & Diagnostics, Hyderabad 500 039, India
Department of Pediatrics, Hospicio Hospital, Margao 403 601, Goa, India

* For correspondence: ashwindalal@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

FUCA1 gene codes for alpha-L-fucosidase enzyme and pathogenic variations (missense, nonsense, frameshift and splice site) are known to disrupt its catalytic function, leading to an autosomal recessive disorder (lysosomal storage disorder) called fucosidosis1,2. Absence of this enzyme or its reduced activity in fucosidosis leads to impaired degradation of both fucosylated glycoproteins as well as glycolipids in lysosomes, leading to the deposition of fucosylated substrates (>20) in different tissues. Variable symptoms of fucosidosis such as psychomotor deterioration, skin and skeletal abnormalities, growth retardation and intellectual disability have been reported3. Fucosidosis is classified into two types based on phenotype. Type 1 fucosidosis is characterized by a rapid psychomotor regression with a severe neurologic involvement at an early age leading to death usually within the first decade of life, whereas type 2 fucosidosis is characterized by milder neurologic signs, psychomotor retardation and a longer survival. In severe cases, symptoms typically show up in infancy, but the affected individuals usually live into their late childhood4. Till date, 160 variants are reported in FUCA1 gene in ClinVar5, of which 23 are pathogenic and 125 are variants of uncertain significance (VOUS). There are two reports from India regarding pathogenic variations in FUCA16,7. Here, we report on genetic analysis in a case of syndromic psychomotor retardation and emphasize on importance of genotype first approach and utility of exome sequencing for detecting the copy number variants.

Two siblings, a girl of nine years and a boy of seven years of age, born out of a non-consanguineous union from Goa, India, presented to a neurologist with a history of developmental delay and language regression followed by non-verbal communication. There was no paternal or maternal family history of neurodegenerative disorders. Both patients had an uneventful perinatal history. Developmental delay was noticed from infancy in both children; however, some language in the form of single words had developed by 2.5-3 yr. However, language milestones regressed by seven years in the girl and five years in the boy. At present, both could only make sounds and point to indicated needs. There were dysmorphic facies with hypertelorism, depressed nasal bridge, low set ears, and tongue thrust (Fig. 1A). Anthropometric examination revealed stunting with failure to thrive, but head circumference was within normal range. Central nervous system examination revealed double hemiplegia, psychomotor retardation and cognitive decline in both patients; however, formal IQ testing was not done. Easy bruisability and petechiae-like rash were observed on the trunk of boy for the last 2-3 months (Fig. 1B). The girl had a fall from a high chair in 2018, which caused subluxation on C1-C2. She was treated conservatively after which she developed severe kyphosis of the spine. No seizures or cherry red spot was reported. Haematological investigations including platelet count and bleeding time were normal in both. Skeletal radiographs revealed no changes in the dysostosis multiplex. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain exhibited hyperintense signal changes on T1-weighted imaging and showed hypointense signal changes on T2-weighted imaging in periventricular and bilateral globus pallidus regions, suggestive of hypoxic changes in both the siblings.

Genotype–phenotype correlation and Sanger sequencing and RT-PCR validation of patient. (A) Facial photograph of both siblings showing dysmorphic facies. (B) Easy bruisability and petechiae-like rash observed on the trunk of proband. (C) IGV view of the BAM file showing the coordinate of FUCA1:c.795G>C:p.Trp265Cys variant identified using BWA-GATK pipeline from the whole exome NGS data. BWA, Burrows-Wheeler Aligner; GATK, genome analysis tool kit.
Fig. 1
Genotype–phenotype correlation and Sanger sequencing and RT-PCR validation of patient. (A) Facial photograph of both siblings showing dysmorphic facies. (B) Easy bruisability and petechiae-like rash observed on the trunk of proband. (C) IGV view of the BAM file showing the coordinate of FUCA1:c.795G>C:p.Trp265Cys variant identified using BWA-GATK pipeline from the whole exome NGS data. BWA, Burrows-Wheeler Aligner; GATK, genome analysis tool kit.

Whole blood samples (2 ml) in EDTA were collected from the affected siblings and their parents after taking a written informed consent. The genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, USA). The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting & Diagnostics, Hyderabad (IEC 31/2019).

Whole exome sequencing of the DNA was performed using the Illumina platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) as per the manufacturer’s protocol for the male proband. The sequences were analyzed using the bioinformatics pipeline described earlier8, (details under Supplementary material online). After correlating with the clinical diagnosis, a novel homozygous NM_000147.5 (FUCA1_v001):c.795G>C, p.(Trp265Cys) (Depth: 49X) variant was identified in exon 5 of the FUCA1 gene (Fig. 1C). This homozygous missense variant of the FUCA1 gene had a combined annotation-dependent depletion (CADD) score of 31 and was predicted to be disease causing by the Mutation Taster and SIFT, in silico pathogenicity prediction programmes (

Supplementary Fig. 1
). This variant has not been reported previously in 1000 Genomes Project, gnomAD or ClinVar, human gene mutation database (HGMD®) databases. dbSNP database mentions c.795G>T variation at low frequency which also codes for the same amino acid change p.Trp265Cys. The variant was classified as ‘Likely Pathogenic’ based on the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines9. The presence of c.795G>C variant was checked in the female sibling and both parents using targeted PCR amplification and Sanger sequencing of exon 5 of the FUCA1 gene. The sibling was homozygous while the father was heterozygous for the c.795G>C variant (Fig. 2A). Mother’s DNA showed the presence of wild-type nucleotide at position c.795 (Fig. 2A). The variant was submitted in ClinVar (Submission Id: SUB11112585).

(A) Electropherograms of the siblings and both parents. The c.795G>C (p.Trp265Cys) variant is indicated by the arrows. It was present in the siblings and father but absent in mother; (B) qPCR assay showing copy number variation of patients with respect to unrelated control. GAPDH was used as the reference gene. Tukey’s multiple comparison test was employed to calculate the significance (P<0.05)ns: not significant, qPCR, quantitative PCR.
Fig. 2
(A) Electropherograms of the siblings and both parents. The c.795G>C (p.Trp265Cys) variant is indicated by the arrows. It was present in the siblings and father but absent in mother; (B) qPCR assay showing copy number variation of patients with respect to unrelated control. GAPDH was used as the reference gene. Tukey’s multiple comparison test was employed to calculate the significance (P<0.05)ns: not significant, qPCR, quantitative PCR.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay for FUCA1 relative gene dosage for exon 5 compared to a reference gene (GAPDH) revealed heterozygous deletion in mother and both the probands (Fig. 2B). The heterozygous deletion was absent in father and two unrelated controls. The same result was verified using the read count distribution in 10 unrelated samples of whole exome sequencing data in exon 5 of FUCA1 gene along with the male proband data. Results showed significant low read count in comparison with the 10 control samples in the exome data of proband (

Supplementary Fig. 2
). We could not ascertain the exact breakpoints of the deletion from exome sequencing data since the breakpoints are likely to be in introns.

In our case, the phenotype in the patient was not matching any particular condition. Hence, we planned for a genotype first approach and conducted exome sequencing in one of the affected. We identified an apparent homozygous novel missense likely disease-causing variant in the FUCA1 gene that results in an amino acid change from tryptophan to cystine at the 265th position (p.Trp265Cys) of the alpha-L-fucosidase protein. The missense variant is likely to lead to change in protein structure or interfere with catalytic function of protein, which in turn will lead to deficiency or complete loss of function of fucosidase enzyme. Following this, we did reverse phenotyping and found that the clinical features in both the affected siblings were consistent with a diagnosis of fucosidosis. The phenotype was consistent with Type II fucosidosis in both siblings.

Familial segregation analysis in our case revealed the mother to be homozygous for wild-type allele. This was in contradiction to the expected heterozygosity in both parents for this autosomal recessive disorder. This phenomenon can be explained by one of the three reasons: (i) uniparental disomy resulting in homozygous variant in proband and only one parent being heterozygous for same variant; (ii) disputed paternity when father is found to be homozygous for wild type allele, or (iii) a heterozygous deletion of exon 5 in mother. Uniparental disomy and disputed paternity were unlikely in our case in view of recurrence in sibling. Hence, we hypothesized that the maternal allele carried a large deletion including exon 5, which can result in apparent homozygous wild-type allele genotype on Sanger sequencing. qPCR analysis confirmed our hypothesis and revealed normal dosage of exon 5 in father and heterozygous deletion in mother and both affected siblings. This reiterates the importance of familial segregation analysis following variant identification in exome/genome sequencing.

Our report expands the genotypic spectrum of fucosidosis and reiterates regarding need of genotype first approach in genetically heterogeneous conditions. Psychomotor retardation is a heterogenous clinical presentation, and often, no specific clinical diagnosis is apparent. Genotype first approach reduces the time to diagnosis in some cases. Family segregation studies are important even in apparently homozygous variants, as unusual phenomenon like deletion of one allele can be seen. Further genetic studies such as qPCR can help in ascertaining these rare instances. Reverse phenotyping, especially with involvement of a clinical geneticist, is important to correlate molecular findings with the phenotype.

Financial support and sponsorship

Core grant of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics and Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (Project Id-BT/AAQ/01/CDFD-Flagship/2019) supported the study.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary Material

Methodology Whole exome sequencing (WES) of the DNA was performed using Illumina platform. (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) following the manufacturer’s protocol for the male proband. The exome library TruSeq RNA Library Prep Kit v2 (Illumina Inc., USA) was sequenced to >100× coverage on Novaseq platform (Illumina Inc., USA). The sequences obtained were aligned to the human reference genome (GRCh37/hg19) using the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner1 programme and analysed using the Picard and Genome Analysis Tool Kit-Lite toolkit2 to identify variants in the whole exome relevant to the clinical indication as described earlier3. Variant annotation was completed using ANNOVAR4 for position and predicted function. Variant filtering was done using 1000 genomes5, exome variant server, exome aggregation consortium6 (using a minor allele frequency of ≤0.01) and dbSNP databases7. Clinically relevant variations were annotated using published variants in the literature and a set of variant databases including ClinVar8, OMIM9 and the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD)10. Following identification of the FUCA1 variant through WES, targeted polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification was performed using exon -specific primers for exon 5 of the FUCA1 gene, and Sanger sequencing was done using ABI 3130 Genetic analyzer (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, California, USA). The information regarding WES raw data analysis is outlined in Supplementary Fig. 1. The VCF file had 138,157 number of variants and after stringent filtering of variants for combined annotation-dependent depletion (CADD)11 score ≥20 left 218 homozygous variants, in which 10 are located in the exonic region of the genome. Following correlation with the clinical diagnosis, a novel homozygous NM_000147.5(FUCA1_v001):c.795G>C, p.(Trp265Cys) (Depth: 49X) likely pathogenic variant was identified in the FUCA1 gene in exon 5 (Fig. 1C). This homozygous missense variant of the FUCA1 gene has a CADD score of 31 and is predicted to be disease-causing by the Mutation Taster and SIFT, in silico pathogenicity prediction programmes. This variant has not been reported previously in 1000 Genomes Project, gnomAD, or ClinVar, HGMD databases (Supplementary Fig. 1). The variant can be classified as Likely Pathogenic (PM2, PM3, PP1, PP3) as per the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines6. The presence of c.795G>C variant was checked in the female sibling and both parents using targeted PCR amplification using F: 5′- ACCAAATGTCCCCTCCAGAG-3′ and R: 5 AACCAACACCGTTAAAGCCC-3′ primers and Sanger sequencing of exon 5 of the FUCA1 gene. The sibling was homozygous while the father was heterozygous for the c.795G>C variant (Fig. 2A). Mother’s DNA showed normal wild type variant (Fig. 2A). Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) analysis Quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) was performed with the Power SYBR Green PCR Master Mix (Takara Bio Inc., Tokyo, Japan) on an Applied Biosystems 7500 Real-Time PCR System (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) following the manufacturer’s protocol. FUCA1 amplification was done using primers F: 5′- GGGGTCAGAACTGTTCCTGT-3′ and R: 5′- CAATGCCATGTCACGACGAT-3′. GAPDH was used as reference gene and amplified using primers F: 5′-TGCCTTCTTGCCTCTTGTCT-3′ and R: 5′-GGCTCACCATGTAGCACTCA-3′. The experiment was repeated twice with each single reaction in triplicate for all the four family members. Assays used DNA at 5 ng/μl final concentration and a no-template control for each primer set in triplicate. Relative gene dosage evaluated by 2−ΔΔCt method calculating the difference in cycle number (ΔCt).

Supplementary Fig. 1

Supplementary Fig. 1 Data statistics and variant information tables. (A) Data quality and alignment statistics. (B) Variant filtering strategy using population databases and prediction scores (minor allele frequency≤0.01 cut-off). (C) Interpretation of the variant identified in FUCA1 gene. (D) Information available in various databases about the FUCA1: c.795G>C:p.Trp265Cys variant, and the prediction scores calculated in various prediction tools.

Supplementary Fig. 2

Supplementary Fig. 2 Table represents the read count distribution in all 8 exons of FUCA1 gene, where exon 5 shows significant low count (highlighted) in proband boy of our sample set for whom WES data are available, C1-C10 shows 10 control samples data of WES sequences using same kit. Plot showing distribution of reads in exon 5 for the proband boy and control (C1-C10). WES, whole exome sequencing.

Acknowledgments:

The authors acknowledge the family for consenting to provide samples for analysis and funding support from Core grant of Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics and Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (Project Id-BT/AAQ/01/CDFD-Flagship/2019). KAL is recipient of Junior and Senior Research Fellowships from CSIR-UGC, India towards the pursuit of a Ph.D. degree of the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology.

References

  1. , , , , , . Spectrum of mutations in fucosidosis. Eur J Hum Genet. 1999;7:60-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , . Metabolism of lipids and its defects: Lipids, lipoproteins and atherosclerotic lesions. J R Soc Med. 1971;64:902-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , , , , . Fucosidosis in Tunisian patients: Mutational analysis and homology-based modeling of FUCA1 enzyme. BMC Med Genomics. 2021;14:208.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . Fucosidosis-clinical manifestation, long-term outcomes, and genetic profile-review and case series. Genes (Basel). 20201383;11
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , . ClinVar: Public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D862-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , . A novel homozygous mutation in the FUCA1 gene highlighting fucosidosis as a cause of dystonia: Case report and literature review. Neuropediatrics. 2019;50:248-52.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , , . Fucosidosis with pathogenic variant in FUCA1 gene. Indian J Pediatr. 2020;87:867-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Whole exome sequencing identifies a novel frameshift mutation in GPC3 gene in a patient with overgrowth syndrome. Gene. 2015;572:303-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: A joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405-24.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , . Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. ArXiv 2013:1303-97.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . The Genome Analysis Toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010;20:1297-303.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , . Whole exome sequencing identifies a novel frameshift mutation in GPC3 gene in a patient with overgrowth syndrome. Gene. 2015;572:303-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , . ANNOVAR: Functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:e164.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , . 1000 Genomes project. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:256.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , . Genetic variants of the DNA repair genes from Exome Aggregation Consortium (EXAC) database: Significance in cancer. DNA Repair (Amst). 2017;52:92-102.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. , , , , . dbSNP: A database of single nucleotide polymorphisms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:352-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , , , , . ClinVar: Public archive of interpretations of clinically relevant variants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D862-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. , , , , , . Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), a knowledgebase of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:D514-7.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , , , . Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD):2003 update. Hum Mutat. 2003;21:577-81.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , . CADD: Predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D886-94.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections
Scroll to Top