We present 2 families that were identified with novel mutations in LOXHD1 as a cause of nonprogressive hearing loss.
Methods:
One thousand three hundred fourteen (1314) Japanese subjects with sensorineural hearing loss from unrelated families were enrolled in the study. Targeted genomic enrichment and massively parallel sequencing of all known nonsyndromic hearing loss genes were performed to identify the genetic cause of hearing loss.
Results:
Two patients in 1 family affected with homozygous mutation c.879+1G>A in LOXHD1 showed profound congenital hearing loss, whereas 2 patients in another family with compound heterozygous mutations, c.5869G>T (p.E1957X) and c.4480C>T (p.R1494X), showed moderate to severe hearing loss.
Conclusion:
Mutations in LOXHD1 are extremely rare, and these cases are the first identified in a Japanese population. The genotype-phenotype correlation in LOXHD1 is still unclear. The differences in phenotypes in each patient might be the result of the nature of the mutations or the location on the gene, or be influenced by a genetic modifier.
HilgertNSmithRVan CampG. Forty-six genes causing nonsyndromic hearing impairment: which ones should be analyzed in DNA diagnostics?Mutat Res. 2009;681(2-3):189-196.
2.
GrilletNSchwanderMHildebrandMS, et al. Mutations in LOXHD1, an evolutionarily conserved stereociliary protein, disrupt hair cell function in mice and cause progressive hearing loss in humans. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85(3):328-337.
3.
VozziDMorganAVuckovicD, et al. Hereditary hearing loss: a 96 gene targeted sequencing protocol reveals novel alleles in a series of Italian and Qatari patients. Gene. 2014;542(2):209-216.
4.
EdvardsonSJalasCShaagA, et al. A deleterious mutation in the LOXHD1 gene causes autosomal recessive hearing loss in Ashkenazi Jews. Am J Med Genet A. 2011;155A(5):1170-1172.
5.
MiyagawaMNishioSYIkedaTFukushimaKUsamiS. Massively parallel DNA sequencing successfully identifies new causative mutations in deafness genes in patients with cochlear implantation and EAS. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75793.
6.
ShearerAEHildebrandMSSmithRJ. Solution-based targeted genomic enrichment for precious DNA samples. BMC Biotechnol. 2012;12(1):20.
7.
ChangXWangK. wANNOVAR: annotating genetic variants for personal genomes via the web. J Med Genet. 2012;49(7):433-436.
8.
WangKLiMHakonarsonH. ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variation from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acid Res. 2010;38(16):e164.
9.
AbecasisGRAutonABrooksLD, et al. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature. 2012;491(7422):56-65.
NaraharaMHigasaKNakamuraS, et al. Large-scale East-Asian eQTL mapping reveals novel candidate genes for LD mapping and the genomic landscape of transcriptional effects of sequence variants. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e100924
12.
PollardKSHubiszMJRosenbloomKR, et al. Detection of nonneutral substitution rates on mammalian phylogenies. Genome Res. 2010;20(1):110-121.
13.
KumarPHenikoffSNgPC. Predicting the effects of coding nonsynonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm. Nat Protoc. 2009;4(7):1073-1081.
14.
AdzhubeiIASchmidtSPeshkinL, et al. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods. 2010;7(4):248-249.
15.
ChunSFayJC. Identification of deleterious mutations within three human genomes. Genome Res. 2009;19(9):1553-1561.
16.
SchwarzJMRodelspergerCSchuelkeM, et al. MutationTaster evaluates disease-causing potential of sequence alterations. Nat Methods. 2010;7(8):575-576.
17.
CooperGMStoneEAAsimenosG, et al. Distribution and intensity of constraint in mammalian genomic sequence. Genome Res. 2005;15(7):901-913.
18.
LiHDurbinR. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25(14):1754-1760.
19.
McKennaAHannaMBanksE, et al. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010;20(9):1297-1303.
20.
FrommoltPAbdallahATAltmullerJ, et al. Assessing the enrichment performance in targeted resequencing experiments. Hum Mutat. 2012;33(4):635-641.
21.
ShearerAEBlack-ZiegelbeinEAHildebrandMS, et al. Advancing genetic testing for deafness with genomic technology. J Med Genet. 2013;50(9):627-634.
22.
EppsteinerRWShearerAEHildebrandMS, et al. Prediction of cochlear implant performance by genetic mutation: the spiral ganglion hypothesis. Hear Res. 2012;292(1-2):51-58.
23.
McHughRKFriedmanRA. Genetics of hearing loss: allelism and modifier genes produce a phenotypic continuum. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2006;288(4):370-381.
24.
RiazuddinSAParkerDSMcGlumphyEJ, et al. Mutations in LOXHD1, a recessive-deafness locus, cause dominant late-onset Fuchs corneal dystrophy. Am J Hum Genet. 2012;90(3):533-539.
25.
StehouwerMBijlsmaWRVan der LelijA. Hearing disability in patients with Fuchs’ endothelial corneal dystrophy: unrecognized co-pathology?Clin Ophthalmol. 2011;5:1297-1301.
26.
Diaz-HortaODumanDFosterJII, et al. Whole-exome sequencing efficiently detects rare mutations in autosomal recessive nonsyndromic hearing loss. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50628.
