De novo and biallelic DEAF1 variants cause a phenotypic spectrum

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the effect of different DEAF1 variants on the phenotype of patients with autosomal dominant and recessive inheritance patterns and on DEAF1 activity in vitro.

Methods

We assembled a cohort of 23 patients with de novo and biallelic DEAF1 variants, described the genotype–phenotype correlation, and investigated the differential effect of de novo and recessive variants on transcription assays using DEAF1 and Eif4g3 promoter luciferase constructs.

Results

The proportion of the most prevalent phenotypic features, including intellectual disability, speech delay, motor delay, autism, sleep disturbances, and a high pain threshold, were not significantly different in patients with biallelic and pathogenic de novo DEAF1 variants. However, microcephaly was exclusively observed in patients with recessive variants (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

We propose that different variants in the DEAF1 gene result in a phenotypic spectrum centered around neurodevelopmental delay. While a pathogenic de novo dominant variant would also incapacitate the product of the wild-type allele and result in a dominant-negative effect, a combination of two recessive variants would result in a partial loss of function. Because the clinical picture can be nonspecific, detailed phenotype information, segregation, and functional analysis are fundamental to determine the pathogenicity of novel variants and to improve the care of these patients.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Genotype and facial phenotype of individuals with DEAF1-associated neurodevelopmental disorders (DAND).
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Vulto-van Silfhout AT, Rajamanickam S, Jensik PJ, et al. Mutations affecting the SAND domain of DEAF1 cause intellectual disability with severe speech impairment and behavioral problems. Am J Hum Genet. 2014;94:649–661.

  2. 2.

    Yip L, Su L, Sheng D, et al. Deaf1 isoforms control the expression of genes encoding peripheral tissue antigens in the pancreatic lymph nodes during type 1 diabetes. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:1026–1033.

  3. 3.

    Barker HE, Smyth GK, Wettenhall J, et al. Deaf-1 regulates epithelial cell proliferation and side-branching in the mammary gland. BMC Dev Biol. 2008;8:94.

  4. 4.

    Gross CT, McGinnis W. DEAF-1, a novel protein that binds an essential region in a Deformed response element. EMBO J. 1996;15:1961–1970.

  5. 5.

    Yip L, Creusot RJ, Pager CT, Sarnow P, Fathman CG. Reduced DEAF1 function during type 1 diabetes inhibits translation in lymph node stromal cells by suppressing Eif4g3. J Mol Cell Biol. 2013;5:99–110.

  6. 6.

    Bottomley MJ, Collard MW, Huggenvik JI, Liu Z, Gibson TJ, Sattler M. The SAND domain structure defines a novel DNA-binding fold in transcriptional regulation. Nat Struct Biol. 2001;8:626–633.

  7. 7.

    Jensik PJ, Huggenvik JI, Collard MW. Identification of a nuclear export signal and protein interaction domains in deformed epidermal autoregulatory factor-1 (DEAF-1). J Biol Chem. 2004;279:32692–32699.

  8. 8.

    Jensik PJ, Huggenvik JI, Collard MW. Deformed epidermal autoregulatory factor-1 (DEAF1) interacts with the Ku70 subunit of the DNA-dependent protein kinase complex. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e33404.

  9. 9.

    Kateb F, Perrin H, Tripsianes K, et al. Structural and functional analysis of the DEAF-1 and BS69 MYND domains. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e54715.

  10. 10.

    Hahm K, Sum EY, Fujiwara Y, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE, Orkin SH. Defective neural tube closure and anteroposterior patterning in mice lacking the LIM protein LMO4 or its interacting partner Deaf-1. Mol Cell Biol. 2004;24:2074–2082.

  11. 11.

    Veraksa A, Kennison J, McGinnis W. DEAF-1 function is essential for the early embryonic development of Drosophila. Genesis. 2002;33:67–76.

  12. 12.

    Vissers LE, de Ligt J, Gilissen C, et al. A de novo paradigm for mental retardation. Nat Genet. 2010;42:1109–1112.

  13. 13.

    Rauch A, Wieczorek D, Graf E, et al. Range of genetic mutations associated with severe non-syndromic sporadic intellectual disability: an exome sequencing study. Lancet. 2012;380:1674–1682.

  14. 14.

    Wenger AM, Guturu H, Bernstein JA, Bejerano G. Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers. Genet Med. 2017;19:209–214.

  15. 15.

    Berger SI, Ciccone C, Simon KL, et al. Exome analysis of Smith-Magenis-like syndrome cohort identifies de novo likely pathogenic variants. Hum Genet. 2017;136:409–420.

  16. 16.

    Chen L, Jensik PJ, Alaimo JT, et al. Functional analysis of novel DEAF1 variants identified through clinical exome sequencing expands DEAF1-associated neurodevelopmental disorder (DAND) phenotype. Hum Mutat. 2017;38:1774–1785.

  17. 17.

    Li SJ, Yu SS, Luo HY, et al. Two de novo variations identified by massively parallel sequencing in 13 Chinese families with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Clin Chim Acta. 2018;479:144–147.

  18. 18.

    Faqeih EA, Al-Owain M, Colak D, et al. Novel homozygous DEAF1 variant suspected in causing white matter disease, intellectual disability, and microcephaly. Am J Med Genet A. 2014;164A:1565–1570.

  19. 19.

    Rajab A, Schuelke M, Gill E, et al. Recessive DEAF1 mutation associates with autism, intellectual disability, basal ganglia dysfunction and epilepsy. J Med Genet. 2015;52:607–611.

  20. 20.

    Gund C, Powis Z, Alcaraz W, Desai S, Baranano K. Identification of a syndrome comprising microcephaly and intellectual disability but not white matter disease associated with a homozygous c.676C>T p.R226W DEAF1 mutation. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170A:1330–1332.

  21. 21.

    Iafrate AJ, Feuk L, Rivera MN, et al. Detection of large-scale variation in the human genome. Nat Genet. 2004;36:949–951.

  22. 22.

    Grimberg J, Nawoschik S, Belluscio L, McKee R, Turck A, Eisenberg A. A simple and efficient non-organic procedure for the isolation of genomic DNA from blood. Nucleic Acids Res. 1989;17:8390.

  23. 23.

    de Ligt J, Willemsen MH, van Bon BW, et al. Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1921–1929.

  24. 24.

    Krumm N, Sudmant PH, Ko A, et al. Copy number variation detection and genotyping from exome sequence data. Genome Res. 2012;22:1525–1532.

  25. 25.

    Pfundt R, Del Rosario M, Vissers L, et al. Detection of clinically relevant copy-number variants by exome sequencing in a large cohort of genetic disorders. Genet Med. 2017;19:667–675.

  26. 26.

    Jacquemin V, Rieunier G, Jacob S, et al. Underexpression and abnormal localization of ATM products in ataxia telangiectasia patients bearing ATM missense mutations. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20:305–312.

  27. 27.

    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) method. Methods. 2001;25:402–408.

  28. 28.

    Ng PC, Henikoff S. SIFT: predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:3812–3814.

  29. 29.

    Adzhubei I, Jordan DM, Sunyaev SR Predicting functional effect of human missense mutations using PolyPhen-2. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2013;76:7.20.1-7.20.41. Chapter 7: Unit 720. https://currentprotocols.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/0471142905.hg0720s76. Accessed 26 March 2019.

  30. 30.

    Kircher M, Witten DM, Jain P, O’Roak BJ, Cooper GM, Shendure J. A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants. Nat Genet. 2014;46:310–315.

  31. 31.

    Lek M, Karczewski KJ, Minikel EV, et al. Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans. Nature. 2016;536:285–291.

  32. 32.

    Michelson RJ, Collard MW, Ziemba AJ, Persinger J, Bartholomew B, Huggenvik JI. Nuclear DEAF-1-related (NUDR) protein contains a novel DNA binding domain and represses transcription of the heterogeneous nuclear ribonucleoprotein A2/B1 promoter. J Biol Chem. 1999;274:30510–30519.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients and their parents for participating in this study. We are grateful to Claire Thompson, from the Medical Photography Department, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, Angus, UK for taking and providing the clinical photographs of individual AD/3. This work was financially supported by grants from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZON-MW grants 917–86–319 and 912–12–109 to B.B.A.d.V.), the Cedars-Sinai Diana and Steve Marienhoff Fashion Industries Guild Endowed Fellowship in Pediatric Neuromuscular Diseases (to T.M.P.), the March of Dimes (grant 6-FY14–422 to M.C.M.), and the National Institutes of Health (grants NINDS 5R21NS091724 to P.J.J. and NINDS R01NS069605 to H.C.M.).

Author information

Correspondence to Bert B. A. de Vries MD, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary TableS1

Supplementary TableS2

Supplementary TableS3

Supplementary TableS4

Supplementary TableS5

Supplementary TableS6

Supplementary TableS7

Supplementary FigureS1

Supplementary FigureS2

Supplementary FigureS3

Supplementary FigureS4

Supplementary FigureS5

Supplementary Figure legends

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Keywords

  • DEAF1
  • neurodevelopmental disorder
  • intellectual disability
  • genotype
  • phenotype