Molecular genetic reevaluation of the Dutch hyperekplexia family
M. A. Tijssen, R. Shiang, J. van Deutekom, R. H. Boerman, J. J. Wasmuth, L. A. Sandkuijl, R. R. Frants and G. W. Padberg
Department of Neurology, University Hospital Leiden, The Netherlands.
OBJECTIVES: To confirm linkage of the locus of the major form of
hyperekplexia to markers on chromosome 5q, to screen for a point mutation
in the gene encoding the alpha 1 subunit of the glycine receptor, and to
investigate whether the putative "minor" form of hyperkeplexia consisting
of an excessive startle response without stiffness, is based on the same
genetic defect as the major form. DESIGN: A survey of various symptoms of
hyperekplexia was performed in the Dutch pedigree. Linkage studies were
performed for these symptoms. SETTING: Subjects were visited at home, and
the genetic study was performed at University Hospital Leiden, (the
Netherlands). PATIENTS: A history was taken from 76 subjects in the
pedigree, and neurologic examinations were performed on 61 subjects from
four generations of the pedigree. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome
measures were lod scores for markers on chromosome 5q for the major and
minor forms of hyperekplexia and periodic leg movements during sleep.
Mutations in the alpha 1 subunit of the glycine receptor were detected by
screening the exons with denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis. RESULTS:
Exaggerated startle responses were reported in 44 patients. The major form
consisted of stiffness in addition to the excessive startle reaction and
occurred in 28 subjects. Sixteen of 44 subjects had startle responses
without stiffness, indicating the minor form. Linkage was found between
markers CSF1-R, D5S209, and D5S119 and the disease locus for the major
form, but not for the minor form. The alpha 1 subunit of the glycine
receptor showed a G to A transition mutation in codon 271 for the major
form, but not for the minor form. CONCLUSIONS: Linkage and an abnormal
glycine receptor were found only in the major form of hyperekplexia.
Recognition of a major form is based on additional stiffness. This is
therefore the most important diagnostic symptom. The minor form is not a
different expression of the same genetic defect and may represent a normal
but pronounced startle response.