Cargando…

Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?

Brugada syndrome (BrS) is diagnosed by a coved-type ST-segment elevation in the right precordial leads on the electrocardiogram (ECG), and it is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) compared to the general population. Although BrS is considered a genetic disease, its molec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Monasky, Michelle M., Micaglio, Emanuele, Ciconte, Giuseppe, Pappone, Carlo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7084676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32121523
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21051687
_version_ 1783508777099591680
author Monasky, Michelle M.
Micaglio, Emanuele
Ciconte, Giuseppe
Pappone, Carlo
author_facet Monasky, Michelle M.
Micaglio, Emanuele
Ciconte, Giuseppe
Pappone, Carlo
author_sort Monasky, Michelle M.
collection PubMed
description Brugada syndrome (BrS) is diagnosed by a coved-type ST-segment elevation in the right precordial leads on the electrocardiogram (ECG), and it is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) compared to the general population. Although BrS is considered a genetic disease, its molecular mechanism remains elusive in about 70–85% of clinically-confirmed cases. Variants occurring in at least 26 different genes have been previously considered causative, although the causative effect of all but the SCN5A gene has been recently challenged, due to the lack of systematic, evidence-based evaluations, such as a variant’s frequency among the general population, family segregation analyses, and functional studies. Also, variants within a particular gene can be associated with an array of different phenotypes, even within the same family, preventing a clear genotype–phenotype correlation. Moreover, an emerging concept is that a single mutation may not be enough to cause the BrS phenotype, due to the increasing number of common variants now thought to be clinically relevant. Thus, not only the complete list of genes causative of the BrS phenotype remains to be determined, but also the interplay between rare and common multiple variants. This is particularly true for some common polymorphisms whose roles have been recently re-evaluated by outstanding works, including considering for the first time ever a polygenic risk score derived from the heterozygous state for both common and rare variants. The more common a certain variant is, the less impact this variant might have on heart function. We are aware that further studies are warranted to validate a polygenic risk score, because there is no mutated gene that connects all, or even a majority, of BrS cases. For the same reason, it is currently impossible to create animal and cell line genetic models that represent all BrS cases, which would enable the expansion of studies of this syndrome. Thus, the best model at this point is the human patient population. Further studies should first aim to uncover genetic variants within individuals, as well as to collect family segregation data to identify potential genetic causes of BrS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7084676
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70846762020-03-24 Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease? Monasky, Michelle M. Micaglio, Emanuele Ciconte, Giuseppe Pappone, Carlo Int J Mol Sci Review Brugada syndrome (BrS) is diagnosed by a coved-type ST-segment elevation in the right precordial leads on the electrocardiogram (ECG), and it is associated with an increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) compared to the general population. Although BrS is considered a genetic disease, its molecular mechanism remains elusive in about 70–85% of clinically-confirmed cases. Variants occurring in at least 26 different genes have been previously considered causative, although the causative effect of all but the SCN5A gene has been recently challenged, due to the lack of systematic, evidence-based evaluations, such as a variant’s frequency among the general population, family segregation analyses, and functional studies. Also, variants within a particular gene can be associated with an array of different phenotypes, even within the same family, preventing a clear genotype–phenotype correlation. Moreover, an emerging concept is that a single mutation may not be enough to cause the BrS phenotype, due to the increasing number of common variants now thought to be clinically relevant. Thus, not only the complete list of genes causative of the BrS phenotype remains to be determined, but also the interplay between rare and common multiple variants. This is particularly true for some common polymorphisms whose roles have been recently re-evaluated by outstanding works, including considering for the first time ever a polygenic risk score derived from the heterozygous state for both common and rare variants. The more common a certain variant is, the less impact this variant might have on heart function. We are aware that further studies are warranted to validate a polygenic risk score, because there is no mutated gene that connects all, or even a majority, of BrS cases. For the same reason, it is currently impossible to create animal and cell line genetic models that represent all BrS cases, which would enable the expansion of studies of this syndrome. Thus, the best model at this point is the human patient population. Further studies should first aim to uncover genetic variants within individuals, as well as to collect family segregation data to identify potential genetic causes of BrS. MDPI 2020-03-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7084676/ /pubmed/32121523 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21051687 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Monasky, Michelle M.
Micaglio, Emanuele
Ciconte, Giuseppe
Pappone, Carlo
Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?
title Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?
title_full Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?
title_fullStr Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?
title_full_unstemmed Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?
title_short Brugada Syndrome: Oligogenic or Mendelian Disease?
title_sort brugada syndrome: oligogenic or mendelian disease?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7084676/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32121523
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21051687
work_keys_str_mv AT monaskymichellem brugadasyndromeoligogenicormendeliandisease
AT micaglioemanuele brugadasyndromeoligogenicormendeliandisease
AT cicontegiuseppe brugadasyndromeoligogenicormendeliandisease
AT papponecarlo brugadasyndromeoligogenicormendeliandisease