To identify the pathogenic gene and mutation site of a Chinese family with congenital cataract.
Methods:
Eight family members and 100 controls were employed, and targeted exome sequencing was used to identify the genetically pathogenic factor of the proband.
Results:
Targeted next-generation sequencing identified a novel missense mutation c.209A>C (p.Q70P) of CRYBB1 gene in the family. Sanger sequencing results showed that this heterozygous mutation was a causative mutation, which was not found in unaffected family members and healthy controls. Bioinformatics predicts that the effect of this mutation on protein function is probably harmful.
Conclusion:
We demonstrate that c.209A>C of CRYBB1 gene is a pathogenic mutation in the family of congenital nuclear cataract in this study. This is the first report that this mutation leads to congenital nuclear cataract, which broadens the mutation spectrum of CRYBB1 gene in congenital nuclear cataract.
AppleDJRamJFosterA, et al. Elimination of cataract blindness: a global perspective entering the new millenium. Surv Ophthalmol2000; 45(Suppl. 1): S1–S196.
2.
ShielsAHejtmancikJF.Mutations and mechanisms in congenital and age-related cataracts. Exp Eye Res2017; 156: 95–102.
3.
SongZSiNXiaoW.A novel mutation in the CRYAA gene associated with congenital cataract and microphthalmia in a Chinese family. BMC Med Genet2018; 19(1): 190.
4.
CuiXZhouZZhuK, et al. A novel Cx50 insert mutation from a Chinese congenital cataract family impairs its cellular membrane localization and function. DNA Cell Biol2018; 37(5): 449–456.
5.
WangHZhangTWuD, et al. A novel beaded filament structural protein 1 (BFSP1) gene mutation associated with autosomal dominant congenital cataract in a Chinese family. Mol Vis2013; 19: 2590–2595.
6.
BerryVPontikosNMooreA, et al. A novel missense mutation in HSF4 causes autosomal-dominant congenital lamellar cataract in a British family. Eye2018; 32(4): 806–812.
7.
BerryVPontikosNAlbarca-AguileraM, et al. A recurrent splice-site mutation in EPHA2 causing congenital posterior nuclear cataract. Ophthalmic Genet2018; 39(2): 236–241.
8.
WangJMaXGuF, et al. A missense mutation S228P in the CRYBB1 gene causes autosomal dominant congenital cataract. Chin Med J2007; 120(9): 820–824.
9.
MackayDSBoskovskaOBKnopfHL, et al. A nonsense mutation in CRYBB1 associated with autosomal dominant cataract linked to human chromosome 22q. Am J Hum Genet2002; 71(5): 1216–1221.
10.
WilloughbyCEShafiqAFerriniW, et al. CRYBB1 mutation associated with congenital cataract and microcornea. Molecular Vision2005; 11: 587–593.
11.
CohenDBar-YosefULevyJ, et al. Homozygous CRYBB1 deletion mutation underlies autosomal recessive congenital cataract. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2007; 48(5): 2208–2213.
12.
YangJZhuYGuF, et al. A novel nonsense mutation in CRYBB1 associated with autosomal dominant congenital cataract. Mol Vis2008; 14: 727–731.
13.
MeyerERahmanFOwensJ, et al. Initiation codon mutation in betaB1-crystallin (CRYBB1) associated with autosomal recessive nuclear pulverulent cataract. Mol Vis2009; 15: 1014–1019.
14.
WangKJWangBBZhangF, et al. Novel beta-crystallin gene mutations in Chinese families with nuclear cataracts. Arch Ophthalmol2011; 129(3): 337–343.
15.
WangKJWangSCaoNQ, et al. A novel mutation in CRYBB1 associated with congenital cataract-microcornea syndrome: the p.Ser129Arg mutation destabilizes the betaB1/betaA3-crystallin heteromer but not the betaB1-crystallin homomer. Hum Mutat2011; 32: E2050–E2060.
16.
WuQShiHLiuN, et al. [Mutation analysis of CRYBB1 gene and prenatal diagnosis for a Chinese kindred featuring autosomal dominant congenital nuclear cataract]. Zhonghua Yi Xue Yi Chuan Xue Za Zhi2013; 30(3): 266–269.
17.
KhanAOAldahmeshMAMohamedJY, et al. Clinical and molecular analysis of children with central pulverulent cataract from the Arabian Peninsula. Br J Ophthalmol2012; 96(5): 650–655.
18.
ReisLMTylerRCMuheisenS, et al. Whole exome sequencing in dominant cataract identifies a new causative factor, CRYBA2, and a variety of novel alleles in known genes. Hum Genet2013; 132(7): 761–770.
19.
MaASGriggJRHoG, et al. Sporadic and familial congenital cataracts: mutational spectrum and new diagnoses using next-generation sequencing. Hum Mutat2016; 37(4): 371–384.
20.
RaoYDongSLiZ, et al. A novel truncation mutation in CRYBB1 associated with autosomal dominant congenital cataract with nystagmus. Mol Vis2017; 23: 624–637.
21.
ChenPChenHPanXJ, et al. Novel mutations in CRYBB1/CRYBB2 identified by targeted exome sequencing in Chinese families with congenital cataract. Int J Ophthalmol2018; 11(10): 1577–1582.
22.
SantanaAWaiswolMArcieriES, et al. Mutation analysis of CRYAA, CRYGC, and CRYGD associated with autosomal dominant congenital cataract in Brazilian families. Mol Vis2009; 15: 793–800.
23.
ChenQMaJYanM, et al. A novel mutation in CRYAB associated with autosomal dominant congenital nuclear cataract in a Chinese family. Mol Vis2009; 15: 1359–1365.
24.
WangKJZhaXChenDD, et al. Mutation analysis of families with autosomal dominant congenital cataract: a recurrent mutation in the CRYBA1/A3 gene causing congenital nuclear cataract. Curr Eye Res2018; 43(3): 304–307.
25.
XiYBChenXJZhaoWJ, et al. Congenital cataract-causing mutation G129C in gamma C-Crystallin promotes the accumulation of two distinct unfolding intermediates that form highly toxic aggregates. J Mol Biol2015; 427(17): 2765–2781.
26.
ZhuangXWangLSongZ, et al. A novel insertion variant of CRYGD is associated with congenital nuclear cataract in a Chinese family. PLoS ONE2015; 10(7): e0131471.
27.
ZhangTYanLLengY, et al. A novel missense mutation of CRYGS underlies congenital cataract in a Chinese family. Gene2018; 675: 9–14.
28.
YuanLGuoYYiJ, et al. Identification of a novel GJA3 mutation in congenital nuclear cataract. Optom Vis Sci2015; 92(3): 337–342.
29.
GaoXChengJLuC, et al. A novel mutation in the connexin 50 gene (GJA8) associated with autosomal dominant congenital nuclear cataract in a Chinese family. Curr Eye Res2010; 35(7): 597–604.
30.
QinLGuoLWangH, et al. A novel MIP mutation in familial congenital nuclear cataracts. Eur J Med Genet2016; 59(9): 488–491.
