Nicholson L V, Johnson M A, Bushby K M, Gardner-Medwin D, Curtis A, Ginjaar I B, den Dunnen J T, Welch J L, Butler T J, Bakker E
Muscular Dystrophy Group Research Laboratories, Newcastle General Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
J Med Genet. 1993 Sep;30(9):745-51. doi: 10.1136/jmg.30.9.745.
This report is the third part of a trilogy from a multidisciplinary study which was undertaken to investigate gene and protein expression in a large cohort of patients with well defined and diverse clinical phenotypes. The aim of part 3 was to review which of the analytical techniques that we had used would be the most useful for differential diagnosis, and which would provide the most accurate indication of disease severity. Careful clinical appraisal is very important and every DMD patient was correctly diagnosed on this basis. In contrast, half of the sporadic BMD patients and all of the sporadic female patients had received different tentative diagnoses based on clinical assessments alone. Sequential observations of quantitative parameters (such as the time taken to run a fixed distance) were found to be useful clinical indicators for prognosis. Intellectual problems might modify the impression of physical ability in patients presenting at a young age. Histopathological assessment was accurate for DMD but differentiation between BMD and other disorders was more difficult, as was the identification of manifesting carriers. Our data on a small number of women with symptoms of muscle disease indicate that abnormal patterns of dystrophin labelling on sections may be an effective way of differentiating between female patients with a form of limb girdle dystrophy and those carrying a defective Xp21 gene. Dystrophin gene analysis detects deletions/duplications in 50 to 90% of male patients and is the most effective non-invasive technique for diagnosis. Quantitative Western blotting, however, would differentiate between all Xp21 and non-Xp21 male patients. In this study we found a clear relationship between increased dystrophin abundance (determined by densitometric analysis of blots) and clinical condition, with a correlation between dystrophin abundance and the age at loss of independent mobility among boys with DMD and intermediate D/BMD. This indicates that blotting is the most sensitive and accurate technique for diagnosis and prognosis.
本报告是一项多学科研究三部曲的第三部分,该研究旨在调查一大群具有明确且多样临床表型的患者的基因和蛋白质表达情况。第三部分的目的是评估我们所使用的哪些分析技术对鉴别诊断最有用,以及哪些技术能最准确地指示疾病严重程度。仔细的临床评估非常重要,在此基础上每个杜氏肌营养不良症(DMD)患者都得到了正确诊断。相比之下,一半的散发性贝克型肌营养不良症(BMD)患者和所有散发性女性患者仅根据临床评估就得到了不同的初步诊断。对定量参数(如跑完固定距离所需时间)的连续观察被发现是有用的预后临床指标。智力问题可能会改变幼年患者身体能力的印象。组织病理学评估对DMD诊断准确,但区分BMD和其他疾病更困难,识别症状携带者也同样困难。我们对少数有肌肉疾病症状女性的数据表明,切片上肌营养不良蛋白标记的异常模式可能是区分患有某种肢带型肌营养不良症的女性患者和携带缺陷Xp21基因女性患者的有效方法。肌营养不良蛋白基因分析在50%至90%的男性患者中检测到缺失/重复,是最有效的非侵入性诊断技术。然而,定量蛋白质免疫印迹法能区分所有Xp21和非Xp21男性患者。在本研究中,我们发现肌营养不良蛋白丰度增加(通过印迹的光密度分析确定)与临床状况之间存在明确关系,在患有DMD和中间型D/BMD的男孩中,肌营养不良蛋白丰度与失去独立活动能力的年龄之间存在相关性。这表明蛋白质免疫印迹法是诊断和预后最敏感、准确的技术。