Evidence Hub

Co-morbid monogenic disorders at chromosome region 1q2: LMNA- and FLG-related disorders in a patient referred for assessment of joint hypermobility

Osundiji MA, Bello AO, Hand JL

Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology, 2025

1 citation

Abstract

The phenotypic similarities and genetic heterogeneity occurring in diverse forms of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (EDS) subtypes and many heritable connective tissue disorders can pose a diagnostic challenge. In the wake of the growing applications of next-generation sequencing technologies including exome and genome sequencing, opportunities for achieving definitive genetic diagnosis are increasingly arising. We present a 46-year-old man with joint laxity, recurrent joint subluxations, pelvic floor dysfunction, and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), who was referred for EDS assessment. His medical history included morbid obesity requiring gastric bypass surgery, hearing loss, asthma, retinopathy, myopia, atrial septal defect, narcolepsy with cataplexy, polyneuropathy, folliculitis, lichen simplex chronicus, atopic dermatitis, and hypogonadism. His family history was significant for multiple first- and second-degree relatives who died from cardiac diseases including cases of childhood deaths. Physical examination showed joint laxity with Beighton score of 3/9, bilateral pes planus, hearing loss and macrocephaly. Exome sequencing revealed heterozygous variants LMNA c.1262 T > C p.L421P [classified as likely pathogenic], FLG c.2282_2285del p. S761Cfs*36 [classified as pathogenic], and FLG c.1501 C > T p. R501* [classified as pathogenic]. Mitochondria sequencing revealed a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), MT-ND2 m.5047 T > C p.V193A that is present at 9%…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free