Spinocerebellar ataxia 17: full phenotype in a 41 CAG/CAA repeats carrier

Le résumé fourni par la source

Spinocerebellar ataxia 17 (SCA17) is one of the most heterogeneous forms of autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxias with a large clinical spectrum which can mimic other movement disorders such as Huntington disease (HD), dystonia and parkinsonism. SCA17 is caused by an expansion of CAG/CAA repeat in the Tata binding protein ( TBP ) gene. Normal alleles contain 25 to 40 CAG/CAA repeats, alleles with 50 or greater CAG/CAA repeats are pathological with full penetrance. Alleles with 43 to 49 CAG/CAA repeats were also reported and their penetrance is estimated between 50 and 80%. Recently few symptomatic individuals having 41 and 42 repeats were reported but it is still unclear whether CAG/CAA repeats of 41 or 42 are low penetrance disease-causing alleles. Thus, phenotypic variability like the disease course in subject with SCA17 locus restricted expansions remains to be fully understood. The patients was a 63-year-old woman who, at 54 years, showed personality changes and increased frequency of falls. At 55 years of age neuropsychological tests showed executive attention and visuospatial deficit. At the age of 59 the patient developed dysarthria and a progressive cognitive deficit. The neurological examination showed moderate gait ataxia, dysdiadochokinesia and dysmetria, dysphagia, dysarthria and abnormal saccadic pursuit, severe axial asynergy during postural changes, choreiform dyskinesias. Molecular analysis of the TBP gene demonstrated an allele with 41 repeat suggesting that 41 CAG/CCG TBP repeats could be an allele associated with the full clinical spectrum of SCA17. The described case with the other similar cases described in the literature suggests that 41 CAG/CAA trinucleotides should be considered as critical threshold in SCA17. We suggest that SCA17 diagnosis should be suspected in patients presenting with movement disorders associated with other neurodegenerative signs and symptoms.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.