Evidence Hub

Identification of STAC3 variants in non-Native American families with overlapping features of Carey-Fineman-Ziter syndrome and Moebius syndrome

Telegrafi A, Webb BD, Robbins SM, Speck-Martins CE, FitzPatrick D, Fleming L, Redett R, Dufke A et al.

American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2017

50 participants · 29 citations

Abstract

Horstick et al. (2013) previously reported a homozygous p.Trp284Ser variant in STAC3 as the cause of Native American myopathy (NAM) in 5 Lumbee Native American families with congenital hypotonia and weakness, cleft palate, short stature, ptosis, kyphoscoliosis, talipes deformities, and susceptibility to malignant hyperthermia (MH). Here we present two non-Native American families, who were found to have STAC3 pathogenic variants. The first proband and her affected older sister are from a consanguineous Qatari family with a suspected clinical diagnosis of Carey-Fineman-Ziter syndrome (CFZS) based on features of hypotonia, myopathic facies with generalized weakness, ptosis, normal extraocular movements, cleft palate, growth delay, and kyphoscoliosis. We identified the homozygous c.851G>C;p.Trp284Ser variant in STAC3 in both sisters. The second proband and his affected sister are from a non-consanguineous, Puerto Rican family who was evaluated for a possible diagnosis of Moebius syndrome (MBS). His features included facial and generalized weakness, minimal limitation of horizontal gaze, cleft palate, and hypotonia, and he has a history of MH. The siblings were identified to be compound heterozygous for STAC3 variants c.851G>C;p.Trp284Ser and c.763_766delCTCT;p.Leu255IlefsX58. Given the phenotypic overlap of individuals with CFZS, MBS, and NAM, we screened STAC3 in 12 individuals diagnosed with CFZS and in 50 individuals diagnosed with MBS or a congenital facial weakness…

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: 50 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