Case Reports in Genetics

Case Reports in Genetics / 2020 / Article

Case Report | Open Access

Volume 2020 |Article ID 5957415 | 6 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5957415

Candidate Genes Associated with Delayed Neuropsychomotor Development and Seizures in a Patient with Ring Chromosome 20

Academic Editor: Muhammad G. Kibriya
Received04 Nov 2019
Accepted17 Dec 2019
Published21 Jan 2020

Abstract

Ring chromosome 20 (r20) is characterized by intellectual impairment, behavioral disorders, and refractory epilepsy. We report a patient presenting nonmosaic ring chromosome 20 followed by duplication and deletion in 20q13.33 with seizures, delayed neuropsychomotor development and language, mild hypotonia, low weight gain, and cognitive deficit. Chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) enabled us to restrict a chromosomal segment and thus integrate clinical and molecular data with systems biology. With this approach, we were able to identify candidate genes that may help to explain the consequences of deletions in 20q13.33. In our analysis, we observed five hubs (ARFGAP1, HELZ2, COL9A3, PTK6, and EEF1A2), seven bottlenecks (CHRNA4, ARFRP1, GID8, COL9A3, PTK6, ZBTB46, and SRMS), and two H-B nodes (PTK6 and COL9A3). The candidate genes may play an important role in the developmental delay and seizures observed in r20 patients. Gene ontology included microtubule-based movement, nucleosome assembly, DNA repair, and cholinergic synaptic transmission. Defects in these bioprocesses are associated with the development of neurological diseases, intellectual disability, neuropathies, and seizures. Therefore, in this study, we can explore molecular cytogenetic data, identify proteins through network analysis of protein-protein interactions, and identify new candidate genes associated with the main clinical findings in patients with 20q13.33 deletions.

1. Introduction

Ring chromosomes are rare structural rearrangements in humans, exhibiting an estimated frequency of 1 in 25,000 recognized conceptions [1] and approximately 1 in 30,000–60,000 births [2]. The ring formations are generally de novo, being only 1% inheritable [35]. Ring chromosome 20 (r20), which was first described in 1972 [6], is a syndrome characterized by refractory epilepsy, intellectual impairment, and behavioral disorders. Facial dysmorphism or other congenital malformations are rarely reported. r20 patients may present normal development until seizure onset, with the cognitive-behavioral decline being observed later, which suggests that the syndrome can be considered an epileptic encephalopathy [7, 8]. Most likely, r20 formation is the result of intrachromosomal fusions from the direct union of unstable telomeres or the occurrence of two breaks, one in each chromosomal arm, resolved by the junction of the telomere ends of both arms, short and long, forming a circular structure [9, 10]. In the latter case, deletions, duplications, and/or inversions usually occur at the chromosomal ends [11, 12]. The diagnosis of ring chromosome 20 syndrome requires identification of ring formation by conventional cytogenetic techniques with the complement of chromosomal microarray analysis to detect small losses and gains in genetic material.

There are fewer than 20 cases described in the literature of patients carrying subtelomeric deletions in 20q13.33 [1318]. Common manifestations of these individuals include skeletal and growth abnormalities, behavioral problems, developmental delay, and seizures [19]. However, there are at least three factors that impair the clinical characterization of affected individuals and the identification of causal genes. First, there are notably few individuals molecularly characterized with high-resolution techniques. Second, there is no pattern regarding the presence of specific clinical manifestations in 20q13.33 deletions. Third, the significance of the ring morphology or chromosomal duplications in clinical abnormalities is unknown. These factors hinder efforts to explain the pathogenesis of 20q13.33 deletions and the probable molecular mechanisms involved in the phenotypic presentation of these individuals.

In this report, we describe an individual carrying a ring chromosome 20 with duplication and deletion in 20q13.33. The integration of cytogenetic, clinical, and protein-protein interactions data enabled us to identify genes that help to explain how the patient’s phenotype is affected by the 20q13.33 deletion present on the ring chromosome.

2. Case Presentation

The proband is female, aged 2 years and 8 months, and is the only daughter of nonconsanguineous parents. The 35-year-old father and the 29-year-old mother reported gestation with high blood pressure and cesarean section with a gestational age of 41 weeks. The girl was born with a weight of 2860 g, length of 45 cm, and cephalic perimeter of 33 cm. The first convulsion of the child was manifested at 15 days of life as a generalized epileptic crisis, which was repeated 24 hours later. At 21 days, new seizures were characterized as focal seizures with secondary generalization and treatment with phenobarbital. The first neuropediatric assessment occurred at 4 months, showing delayed neuropsychomotor development, mild hypotonia, low weight gain, and cephalic perimeter of 36 cm (<−3 Z scores). The electroencephalogram, cranial resonance, and screening tests for inborn errors of metabolism were unchanged. The child was referred for genetic evaluation. At the age of examination, the patient showed some facial dysmorphic features as enlarged nasal dorsum, bulbous nasal tip, short columella, and long nasolabial filter. The treatment with phenobarbital was efficient with control of the epileptic seizures for approximately 1 year, when it presented decompensation of the convulsive conditions, making it necessary to change the anticonvulsant to oxcarbazepine and levetiracetam. The child started walking independently at 26 months, and at 2 years and 6 months of age, the child presented delayed motor development and language and high cognitive deficit.

Karyotyping from the proband was performed on metaphase spreads prepared from peripheral blood samples. The chromosomal analysis was conducted after GTG banding at 550-band resolution, and at least 100 cells were analysed (Figure 1A). The karyotype showed results 46,XX,r(20). The parental karyotype was normal. At least 100 cells from each individual were analyzed. The DNA sample from the child was investigated using chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) with a 60-mer oligonucleotide-based microarray with a theoretical resolution of 40 kb (8 × 60 K, Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). The images were analyzed using Cytogenomics v 2.0 and 2.7 with the statistical algorithm ADM-2 and a sensitivity threshold of 6.0 (Figure 1B). It is recommended to provide confirmation of CMA results with other methods such as FISH or real-time PCR, especially for the refinement of breakpoints of structural chromosomal abnormalities. The authors pursued to perform it; but unfortunately, there is no sample left of this patient anymore, and the family is not available to obtain a new sample. The protein-protein interaction (PPI) metasearch engine STRING 10.0 (http://string-db.org/) was used to create PPI networks based on 40 genes and gene predictions located in the deleted region from our patient (Figure 2A). The list of genes was obtained from CMA analyses and subsequent research into the human assembly of February 2009 (GRCh37/hg19) [20, 21]. The parameters used in STRING were (i) degree of confidence, 0.400, with 1.0 being the highest level of confidence; (ii) 500 proteins in the 1st and 2nd shell; and (iii) all prediction methods enabled, except for textmining and gene fusion. The final PPI network obtained through STRING was analyzed using Cytoscape 3.5 [22]. The MCODE tool was used to identify densely connected regions in the final Cytoscape network. The PPI modules generated by MCODE were further studied by focusing on major biology-associated processes using the Biological Network Gene Ontology (BiNGO) 3.0.3 Cytoscape plugin [23]. The degree of functional enrichment for a given cluster and category was quantitatively assessed (p value) using a hypergeometric distribution. Multiple test correction was also implemented by applying the false discovery rate (FDR) algorithm [24] at a significance level of . Finally, two major parameters of network centralities (node degree and betweenness) were used to identify hub-bottleneck (H-B) nodes from the PPI network using the Cytoscape plugin CentiScaPe 3.2.1 [25].

3. Discussion

The underlying biological mechanism in individuals with ring 20 has not been determined. Hypotheses include (i) gene silencing by the influence of telomere position; (ii) uniparental disomy of chromosome 20; (iii) deleted genes in the chromosomal segment, or (iv) effect of ring instability in cellular functions [26]. In this study, we investigated genotype-phenotype correlations through deleted genes in 20q13.33 using systems biology approaches to explain the associated clinical spectrum in our patient. With this approach, we identified candidate genes that may be involved in the pathophysiology of ring chromosome 20. To measure the importance of the protein-protein interaction network of genes located in the deleted region (Figure 1B), we examined the topological properties of the network using centrality analyses.

The proteins ARFGAP1, HELZ2, and EEF1A2 presented a high node degree in the network. These nodes are considered hubs and have central functions in a biological network [25]. ARFGAP1 serves as a regulator of vesicular trafficking of proteins [27]. HELZ2 is a helicase that acts as a transcriptional coactivator [28]. EEF1A2 promotes the GTP-dependent binding of aminoacyl-tRNA during protein biosynthesis and plays a role in the regulation of actin function and cytoskeletal structure. EEF1A2 knockout mice showed degeneration of neurons in the spinal cord and brain stem [29], and heterozygous mutations in the gene were associated with intellectual disability, developmental delay, autistic behaviors, and epilepsy [30, 31]. Therefore, the EEF1A2 protein may be a good candidate to explain some of the symptoms present in individuals with deletion 20q13.33.

CHRNA4, ARFRP1, GID8, and SRMS were the nodes identified as bottlenecks in the network. ARFRP1 plays a role in membrane trafficking between the trans-Golgi network and endosomes. GID8 is a nuclear retention factor for β-catenin during Wnt signaling, and SRMS nonreceptor-type tyrosine kinases are a BRK family of kinases (BFKs) involved in the proliferation or differentiation of keratinocytes [3234]. CHRNA4 encodes alpha-4 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits, and different mutations in the gene cause autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy (ADNFLE) [35, 36]. CHRNA4 is a known gene associated with epilepsy in ring 20 patients [26]. Bottlenecks are related to the control of information between the interactions in the network [25, 37]; therefore, the identification of CHRNA4 already linked to the syndrome phenotype indicates that the haploinsufficiency of these bottlenecks could play a role in the development of our patient’s phenotype.

Hub-bottlenecks (H-B) are nodes with a high degree and betweenness score. Among the nodes classified as H-B are two proteins, PTK6, another member of BFK, interacts directly with SRMS in the network. PTK6 functions as an intracellular signal transducer in epithelial tissues, contributing to the migration, adhesion, and progression of the cell cycle [38, 39]. COL9A3 is a structural component of hyaline cartilage, and mutations in the gene are associated with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia [40, 41].

Genes associated with the same illness have been observed to interact with each other more frequently than predicted by chance [42]. Therefore, we performed cluster analysis to examine densely connected regions in the final network and observe these novel candidate genes localized in 20q13.33 [43]. We analyzed a total of 11 clusters (data not shown). Interesting relationships were found; for example, the proteins HELZ2, EEF1A2, DIDO1, YTHDF1, PTK6, COL9A3, and COL20A1 interact with one another in cluster 2 (Figure 2C). Many of these genes are deleted in nonmosaic ring chromosome 20, and the clinical abnormalities identified in these individuals include findings also seen in our patient as seizures, intellectual disability, and developmental delay [8]. Ring chromosome 20 is associated with refractory epilepsy, behavioral problems, and mild-to-severe cognitive impairment. De novo microdeletion of 20q13.33 is associated with intellectual disabilities, developmental delay, speech and language delay, seizure, and behavioral problems such as autistic spectrum disorder. However, there is no pattern of abnormalities that would arouse clinical suspicion of a r(20) or de novo 20q13.33 microdeletion [19].

Functional enrichment analysis in the clusters revealed that the candidate genes were enriched in several biological processes, including microtubule-based movement, nucleosome assembly, DNA repair, and cholinergic synaptic transmission (Tables S1S11). Defects in these bioprocesses are associated with the development of neurological diseases, intellectual disability, neuropathies, and seizures [4448]. In addition, such bioprocesses as cell-matrix adhesion and integrin-mediated signaling were identified (Figure 3). These pathways are involved in neural stem cell differentiation, neuronal migration, neuroplasticity, maturation, and function of synapses in the peripheral and central nervous system and may have an important contribution to the emergence of intellectual disability and seizures in humans [4951]. The biological processes involving candidate genes denote the heterogeneity of pathways disrupted by 20q13.33 deletions.

The ring chromosome associated with subtelomeric deletions and duplications can confound and limit genotype-phenotype correlations. In fact, the circular structure of a ring chromosome, as described in this report, can change the ordinary 3D conformation of the chromatin in various ways and thus alter the expression of the genes present in the ring chromosome. The presence of an amplification identified in our ring chromosome analysis hinders efforts to determine its impact on the patient’s phenotype. The duplication can be seen as a consequence of the mechanism of ring formation; in this case, an inverted duplication may be stabilized not only through telomere healing and telomere capture but also through circularization in the chromosomal ring [12]. Recently, chromothripsis and chromoanasynthesis have been proposed as two independent mechanisms that could explain the combination of deletions and duplications on the same chromosome. Indeed, various molecular approaches, including whole genome sequencing, have shown that the concomitance of amplification, deletion, and ring chromosomes can be the result of a more complex rearrangement with respect to a ring chromosome with only the loss of extremities [52, 53]. In this case, it is expected that the final phenotype of the proband is not only the result of the abnormal dosage of deleted genes but also of the altered expression of duplicate genes present in two copies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary Materials

Table 1: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 1. Table 2: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 2. Table 3: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 3. Table 4: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 4. Table 5: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 5. Table 6: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 6. Table 7: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 7. Table 8: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 8. Table 9: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 9. Table 10: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 10. Table 11: list of GO terms identified by BiNGO in Cluster 11. Table 12: list of genes located in the 0.9 Mb smallest overlap region encompassing band 20q13.33. (Supplementary Materials)

References

  1. P. A. Jacobs, “Mutation rates of structural chromosome rearrangements in man,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 44–54, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  2. G. Kosztolányi, “The genetics and clinical characteristics of constitutional ring chromosomes,” Journal of the Association of Genetic Technologists, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 44–48, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
  3. G. Kosztolányi, “Does “ring syndrome” exist? An analysis of 207 case reports on patients with a ring autosome,” Human Genetics, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 174–179, 1987. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. G. Kosztolányi, K. Méhes, and E. B. Hook, “Inherited ring chromosomes: an analysis of published cases,” Human Genetics, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 320–324, 1991. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. J. Knijnenburg, A. van Haeringen, K. B. M. Hansson et al., “Ring chromosome formation as a novel escape mechanism in patients with inverted duplication and terminal deletion,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 548–555, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. L. Atkins, W. L. Miller, and M. Salam, “A ring-20 chromosome,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 377–380, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
  7. A. Vignoli, M. P. Canevini, F. Darra et al., “Ring chromosome 20 syndrome: a link between epilepsy onset and neuropsychological impairment in three children,” Epilepsia, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 2420–2427, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. L. K. Conlin, W. Kramer, A. L. Hutchinson et al., “Molecular analysis of ring chromosome 20 syndrome reveals two distinct groups of patients,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. A. Vazna, M. Havlovicova, and Z. Sedlacek, “Molecular cloning and analysis of breakpoints on ring chromosome 17 in a patient with autism,” Gene, vol. 407, no. 1-2, pp. 186–192, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. S. W. Maluf, Citogenética Humana, Artmed, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2011.
  11. M. J. McGinniss, H. H. Kazazian Jr., G. Stetten et al., “Mechanisms of ring chromosome formation in 11 cases of human ring chromosome 21,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 15–28, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  12. E. Rossi, M. Riegel, J. Messa et al., “Duplications in addition to terminal deletions are present in a proportion of ring chromosomes: clues to the mechanisms of formation,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 147–154, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. M. A. Aldred, S. Aftimos, C. Hall et al., “Constitutional deletion of chromosome 20q in two patients affected with albright hereditary osteodystrophy,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 113, no. 2, pp. 167–172, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. Balasubramanian, E. Atack, K. Smith, and M. J. Parker, “A novel de novo 20q13.32-q13.33 deletion in a 2-year-old child with poor growth, feeding difficulties and low bone mass,” Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 313–317, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. F. Bené, A. Bottani, F. Marcelli et al., “A de novo 1–1.6 Mb subtelomeric deletion of chromosome 20q13.33 in a patient with learning difficulties but without obvious dysmorphic features,” American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, vol. 143A, no. 16, pp. 1894–1899, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. M. Béri-Deixheimer, M.-J. Gregoire, A. Toutain et al., “Genotype-phenotype correlations to aid in the prognosis of individuals with uncommon 20q13.33 subtelomere deletions: a collaborative study on behalf of the “Association des Cytogénéticiens de Langue Française”,” European Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 446–452, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. A. E. Roberts, G. F. Cox, V. Kimonis, A. Lamb, and M. Irons, “Clinical presentation of 13 patients with subtelomeric rearrangements and a review of the literature,” American Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 128A, no. 4, pp. 352–363, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. F. Shabtai, E. Ben-Sasson, S. Arieli, and J. Grinblat, “Chromosome 20 long arm deletion in an elderly malformed man,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 171–173, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. R. N. Traylor, D. L. Bruno, T. Burgess et al., “A genotype-first approach for the molecular and clinical characterization of uncommon de novo microdeletion of 20q13.33,” PLoS One, vol. 5, no. 8, Article ID e12462, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. W. J. Kent, C. W. Sugnet, T. S. Furey, and K. M. Roskin, “The human genome browser at UCSC W,” Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1228–1231, 1976. View at: Google Scholar
  21. C. von Mering, L. J. Jensen, B. Snel et al., “STRING: known and predicted protein-protein associations, integrated and transferred across organisms,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 33, pp. D433–437, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. P. Shannon, A. Markiel, O. Ozier et al., “Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks,” Genome Research, vol. 13, no. 11, pp. 2498–2504, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. S. Maere, K. Heymans, and M. Kuiper, “BiNGO: a cytoscape plugin to assess overrepresentation of gene ontology categories in biological networks,” Bioinformatics, vol. 21, no. 16, pp. 3448-3449, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg, “Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 289–300, 1995. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. G. Scardoni and C. Laudanna, “Centralities based analysis of complex networks,” in New Frontiers in Graph Theory, Y. Zhang, Ed., InTech, London, UK, 2002, http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-frontiers-in-graph-theory/centralities-based-analysis-of-networks. View at: Google Scholar
  26. R. D. Daber, L. K. Conlin, L. D. Leonard et al., “Ring chromosome 20,” European Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 381–387, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. I. Huber, M. Rotman, E. Pick et al., “[33] Expression, purification, and properties of ADP-ribosylation factor (ARF) GTPase activating protein-1,” in Methods in Enzymology, vol. 329, no. 1995, pp. 307–316, Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, Netherlands, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. T. Tomaru, T. Satoh, S. Yoshino et al., “Isolation and characterization of a transcriptional cofactor and its novel isoform that bind the deoxyribonucleic acid-binding domain of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma,” Endocrinology, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 377–388, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. L. A. Griffiths, J. Doig, A. M. D. Churchhouse et al., “Haploinsufficiency for translation elongation factor eEF1A2 in aged mouse muscle and neurons is compatible with normal function,” PLoS One, vol. 7, no. 7, Article ID e41917, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. C. Bischoff, S. Kahns, A. Lund et al., “The human elongation factor 1 A-2 gene (EEF1A2): complete sequence and characterization of gene structure and promoter activity,” Genomics, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 63–70, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. Nakajima, N. Okamoto, J. Tohyama et al., “De novo EEF1A2 mutations in patients with characteristic facial features, intellectual disability, autistic behaviors and epilepsy,” Clinical Genetics, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 356–361, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. Y. Kawachi, H. Nakauchi, and F. Otsuka, “Isolation of a cDNA encoding a tyrosine kinase expressed in murine skin,” Experimental Dermatology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 140–146, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. Y. Lu, S. Xie, W. Zhang et al., “Twa1/Gid8 is a β-catenin nuclear retention factor in Wnt signaling and colorectal tumorigenesis,” Cell Research, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1422–1440, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. R. K. Goel, M. Paczkowska, J. Reimand, S. Napper, and K. E. Lukong, “Phosphoproteomics analysis identifies novel candidate substrates of the non-receptor tyrosine kinase, src-related kinase lacking c-terminal regulatory tyrosine and N-terminal myristoylation sites (SRMS),” Molecular & Cellular Proteomics, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 925–947, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. R. Combi, L. Dalprá, M. L. Tenchini, and L. Ferini-Strambi, “Autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy,” Journal of Neurology, vol. 251, no. 8, pp. 923–934, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. Y. Chen, L. Wu, Y. Fang et al., “A novel mutation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor gene CHRNA4 in sporadic nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy,” Epilepsy Research, vol. 83, no. 2-3, pp. 152–156, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. M. E. J. Newman, “Modularity and community structure in networks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, no. 23, pp. 8577–8582, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. K. E. Lukong, D. Larocque, A. L. Tyner, and S. Richard, “Tyrosine phosphorylation of Sam68 by breast tumor kinase regulates intranuclear localization and cell cycle progression,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 280, no. 46, pp. 38639–38647, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. W.-S. Shin, H. J. Shim, Y. H. Lee et al., “PTK6 localized at the plasma membrane promotes cell proliferation and migration through phosphorylation of Eps8,” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry, vol. 118, no. 9, pp. 2887–2895, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. M. Czarny-Ratajczak, J. Lohiniva, P. Rogala et al., “A mutation in COL9A1 causes multiple epiphyseal dysplasia: further evidence for locus heterogeneity,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. 969–980, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. C. Jeong, J. Y. Lee, J. Kim et al., “Novel COL9A3 mutation in a family diagnosed with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia: a case report,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. A.-L. Barabási, N. Gulbahce, and J. Loscalzo, “Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 56–68, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. J. Menche, A. Sharma, M. Kitsak et al., “Uncovering disease-disease relationships through the incomplete interactome,” Science, vol. 347, no. 6224, Article ID 1257601, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. A. Friedman, C. J. Behrens, and U. Heinemann, “Cholinergic dysfunction in temporal lobe epilepsy,” Epilepsia, vol. 48, no. s5, pp. 126–130, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. P. J. McKinnon, “DNA repair deficiency and neurological disease,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 100–112, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. M. A. M. Franker and C. C. Hoogenraad, “Microtubule-based transport-basic mechanisms, traffic rules and role in neurological pathogenesis,” Journal of Cell Science, vol. 126, no. 11, pp. 2319–2329, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. A. J. López and M. A. Wood, “Role of nucleosome remodeling in neurodevelopmental and intellectual disability disorders,” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, vol. 9, pp. 1–10, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. M. Du, J. Li, R. Wang, and Y. Wu, “The influence of potassium concentration on epileptic seizures in a coupled neuronal model in the hippocampus,” Cognitive Neurodynamics, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 405–414, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. D. J. Webb, H. Zhang, D. Majumdar, and A. F. Horwitz, “α5 integrin signaling regulates the formation of spines and synapses in hippocampal neurons,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 282, no. 10, pp. 6929–6935, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. C. S. Barros, S. J. Franco, and U. Muller, “Extracellular matrix:functions in the nervous system,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology, vol. 3, no. 1, Article ID a005108, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. X. Wu and D. S. Reddy, “Integrins as receptor targets for neurological disorders,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 134, no. 1, pp. 68–81, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. P. Ly and D. W. Cleveland, “Rebuilding chromosomes after catastrophe: emerging mechanisms of chromothripsis,” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 917–930, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. L. Nazaryan-Petersen, J. Eisfeldt, M. Pettersson et al., “Replicative and non-replicative mechanisms in the formation of clustered CNVs are indicated by whole genome characterization,” PLoS Genetics, vol. 14, no. 11, Article ID e1007780, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2020 Thiago Corrêa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

91 Views | 183 Downloads | 0 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at help@hindawi.com to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.