Reply to: “Dopa‐Responsive Parkinsonism in a Patient With Homozygous RFC1 Expansions”
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We would like to thank da Silva Schmitt and colleagues for their response to our publication concerning the RFC1 repeat expansion in pathologically confirmed multiple systems atrophy.1 da Silva Schmitt and colleagues describe an interesting patient who presents with dopa-responsive parkinsonism and is positive for the RFC1 AAGGG repeat expansion on triplet-repeat primed polymerase chain reaction (TP-PCR). The parkinsonian symptoms manifested as bradykinesia, resting tremor, and stiffness and were supported by a reduction of dopaminergic transporters uptake in bilateral striatum in the dopamine transporter scan. Interestingly, the patient demonstrated impaired vestibulo-ocular reflexes bilaterally and a 20-year history of a chronic dry cough and sensory neuropathy, which are all main features of cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy, vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS). In addition, the patient did not present with autonomic features, rapid eye movement behavior disorder, and hypo/anosmia, conflicting a diagnosis of classical Parkinson's disease. Although da Silva Schmitt and colleagues ruled out other relevant variants using whole-exome sequencing, and TP-PCR yielded a positive result, it is important to confirm all TP-PCR positive cases with Southern blotting. Southern blotting TP-PCR positive cases rules out carriers and false positives. It also allows for the accurate sizing of the expansion, which would be interesting in this case because of the phenotypic differences seen in this patient.2 Since the identification of RFC1 expansions in CANVAS we have seen this disorder as a clinical spectrum.3 This ranges from mild ataxia with sensory neuropathy, to the CANVAS clinical syndrome, through to a more rapidly progressive ataxia with parkinsonism, autonomic dysfunction, and an abnormal dopamine transporter scan; a clinical overlap between CANVAS and multiple systems atrophy, with RFC1 expansions on repeat-primed PCR and Southern blotting (unpublished data). We predict that the phenotypic spectrum associated with the RFC1 repeat expansion is likely to be broader than previously described as in the report of da Silva Schmitt and colleagues. It would therefore be of great importance to screen larger cohorts of patients, particularly in cohorts of different ethnic origins with atypical and even typical parkinsonism, as well as ataxic disorders for the RFC1 expansion, to confirm its prevalence and further define the RFC1 clinical spectrum. We thank all patients and families for their support as well as clinical and laboratory collaborators who are essential to our work. We are grateful for support from The Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, the Rosetree Trust, Ataxia UK, the Multiple Systems Atrophy Trust, The Multiple Systems Atrophy Coalition, and The National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. (1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. First Draft, B. Review and Critique. R.S.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B. W.Y.: 1B, 1C, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B V.C.: 1C, 3A, 3B S.R.: 1C, 3A, 3B E.O.C.: 3A, 3B N.W.: 3A, 3B A.C.: 1A, 2C, 3A, 3B H.H.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».