Evidence Hub

Case report: Two individuals with AEBP1-related classical-like EDS: Further clinical characterisation and description of novel AEBP1 variants

C. Angwin, N. Ghali, F. V. van Dijk

Frontiers in Genetics, 2023

11 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Introduction: AEBP1-related classical-like EDS (clEDS type 2) is a rare type of Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (EDS) that was first reported in 2016. There are overlapping clinical features with TNXB-related classical-like EDS (or clEDS type 1), including skin hyperextensibility, joint hypermobility, and easy bruising. There are currently nine reported individuals with AEBP1-related clEDS type 2. This report confirms previous findings and provides additional clinical and molecular data on this group of individuals. Materials and methods: Two individuals (P1 and P2), with features of a rare type of EDS, were clinically assessed in the London national EDS service and underwent genetic testing. Results: Genetic testing in P1 revealed likely pathogenic AEBP1 variants: c.821del:p. (Pro274Leufs*18) and c.2248T>C:p. (Trp750Arg). In P2 pathogenic AEBP1 variants, c.1012G>T:p. (Glu338*) and c.1930C>T:p. (Arg644*) were identified. Discussion: These two individuals increased the reported number of individuals with AEBP1-related clEDS to 11 (six females and five males). There are shared features with previously reported individuals, including hypermobility (11/11), skin hyperextensibility (11/11), presence of atrophic scarring (9/11), and easy bruising (10/11). In P1, a chronic right vertebral artery dissection, mild dilatation of the splenic artery, aberrant subclavian artery, and tortuous iliac arteries were observed at the age of 63 years. Cardiovascular disease has been reported, including…

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. Reported size: 11 participants or records.

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