Protein structure and phenotypic analysis of pathogenic and population missense variants in STXBP1

Background: Syntaxin-binding protein 1, encoded by STXBP1, is highly expressed in the brain and involved in fusing synaptic vesicles with the plasma membrane. Studies have shown that pathogenic loss-of-function variants in this gene result in various types of epilepsies, mostly beginning early in life. We were interested to model pathogenic missense variants on the protein structure to investigate the mechanism of pathogenicity and genotype–phenotype correlations. Methods: We report 11 patients with pathogenic de novo mutations in STXBP1 identified in the first 4293 trios of the Deciphering Developmental Disorder (DDD) study, including six missense variants. We analyzed the structural locations of the pathogenic missense variants from this study and the literature, as well as population missense variants extracted from Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). Results: Pathogenic variants are significantly more likely to occur at highly conserved locations than population variants, and be buried inside the protein domain. Pathogenic mutations are also more likely to destabilize the domain structure compared with population variants, increasing the proportion of (partially) unfolded domains that are prone to aggregation or degradation. We were unable to detect any genotype–phenotype correlation, but unlike previously reported cases, most of the DDD patients with STXBP1 pathogenic variants did not present with very early-onset or severe epilepsy and encephalopathy, though all have developmental delay with intellectual disability and most display behavioral problems and suffered seizures in later childhood. Conclusion: Variants across STXBP1 that cause loss of function can result in severe intellectual disability with or without seizures, consistent with a haploinsufficiency mechanism. Pathogenic missense mutations act through destabilization of the protein domain, making it prone to aggregation or degradation. The presence or absence of early seizures may reflect ascertainment bias in the literature as well as the broad recruitment strategy of the DDD study.The DDD study presents independent research commissioned by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund (grant number HICF-1009-003), a parallel funding partnership between the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health, and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (grant number WT098051)

Protein structure and phenotypic analysis of pathogenic and population missense variants inSTXBP1.

This is the final version of the article. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Syntaxin-binding protein 1, encoded bySTXBP1, is highly expressed in the brain and involved in fusing synaptic vesicles with the plasma membrane. Studies have shown that pathogenic loss-of-function variants in this gene result in various types of epilepsies, mostly beginning early in life. We were interested to model pathogenic missense variants on the protein structure to investigate the mechanism of pathogenicity and genotype-phenotype correlations. METHODS: We report 11 patients with pathogenic de novo mutations inSTXBP1identified in the first 4293 trios of the Deciphering Developmental Disorder (DDD) study, including six missense variants. We analyzed the structural locations of the pathogenic missense variants from this study and the literature, as well as population missense variants extracted from Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC). RESULTS: Pathogenic variants are significantly more likely to occur at highly conserved locations than population variants, and be buried inside the protein domain. Pathogenic mutations are also more likely to destabilize the domain structure compared with population variants, increasing the proportion of (partially) unfolded domains that are prone to aggregation or degradation. We were unable to detect any genotype-phenotype correlation, but unlike previously reported cases, most of the DDD patients withSTXBP1pathogenic variants did not present with very early-onset or severe epilepsy and encephalopathy, though all have developmental delay with intellectual disability and most display behavioral problems and suffered seizures in later childhood. CONCLUSION: Variants acrossSTXBP1that cause loss of function can result in severe intellectual disability with or without seizures, consistent with a haploinsufficiency mechanism. Pathogenic missense mutations act through destabilization of the protein domain, making it prone to aggregation or degradation. The presence or absence of early seizures may reflect ascertainment bias in the literature as well as the broad recruitment strategy of the DDD study.This study was supported by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund (grant number: HICF-1009-003) and Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (grant number: WT098051)

Genetic testing and common disorders in a public health framework: how to assess relevance and possibilities

This paper discusses genetic testing and common disorders from a health-care perspective. New possibilities for genetic testing confront health-care workers with the question of whom to test and which test to use. This document focuses on genetic testing and screening in common disorders. The term ¿common disorder¿ is used for disorders that individually have a high impact on public health.Examples of common disorders include cardiovascular disease (CVD), stroke, diabetes, cancer, dementia, and depression. For a health-care practitioner ¿ unlike a geneticist or an epidemiologist ¿ it may not be clear whether a common disorder is due to one gene with a high risk of serious disease, or due to a combination of several genes and several environmental factors. This document will not consider germline prenatal or preconceptional testing, nor testing of biomarkers for tumor recurrence, but it will discuss testing of mutations in tumor tissue, since this may reveal susceptibility to certain forms of therapy. Also, pharmacogenomic applications will not be discussed in depth, although some examples will be given of pharmacogenomic testing. The outlne is as following: First, the terrain of common complex disorders is introduced. Different assessment frames for genetic testing and screening are discussed. The section following that examines the aims and strategies for genetic testing and screening in common disorders and discusses some examples of current testing and screening in Europe. The section ¿The economic evaluation of genetic tests¿ discusses the cost¿benefit relation of different types of tests and screening strategies and how they could be used in the clinic in a cost-effective way. The subsequent section addresses the ethical, legal, and social issues of testing and screening in common disorders. The last section addresses regulatory and intellectual property issues in the EU as well as the United States.JRC.DDG.J.2-The economics of climate change, energy and transpor