MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399442144

[Dopa-responsive dystonia: clinical, genetic, and biochemical studies].

2006· article· en· W2399442144 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshiaki Furukawa

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGTP cyclohydrolase IDystoniaTyrosine hydroxylaseSubstantia nigraBiologyGeneticsNeurochemicalTetrahydrobiopterinEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineNeuroscienceDopamineDopaminergic
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dopa-responsive dystonia (DRD) is a clinical syndrome characterized by childhood-onset dystonia and a dramatic and sustained response to low doses of levodopa. There are at least three causative genes for DRD: (1) the GCH1 gene on chromosome 14q22.1-q22.2, which encodes GTP cyclohydrolase I (GTPCH), the first enzyme in the biosynthetic pathway for tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4; the essential cofactor for tyrosine hydroxylase [THI]), (2) the TH gene on 11 p15.5, coding for the enzyme TH that catalyzes the rate-limiting step in the catecholamine biosynthesis, and (3) an as yet undefined gene on 14q13 (DYT14). In reports on DRD, in which conventional genomic DNA sequencing of GCH1 was conducted in a relatively large number of pedigrees, mutations in the coding region (including the splice sites) of this gene were found in approximately 60% (range: 49-79%) of DRD families. In our series, after conducting additional GCH1 testing (Southern blotting, cDNA sequencing, etc.) and TH analysis, 86% of families with DRD or dystonia with motor delay (an intermediate phenotype between GTPCH-deficient DRD [mild] and GTPCH-deficient hyperphenylalaninemia [severe]) had identifiable GCH1 or (rarely) TH mutations. Up to the present, only one pedigree with autosomal dominant DRD linked to the DYT14 locus has been reported. Neuropathological findings (no Lewy bodies and a normal population of cells with reduced melanin in the substantia nigra) in DRD patients with GTPCH dysfunction were similar to those in a patient with DYT14 dystonia. There have been no reports of autopsied patients with TH-deficient DRD. Neurochemical data suggest that striatal dopamine reduction in GTPCH-deficient DRD is caused not only by decreased TH activity resulting from a low cofactor (BH4) level but also by actual loss of TH protein without nerve terminal loss. This TH protein reduction in the striatum, especially in the putamen, may be due to a diminished regulatory effect of BH4 on stability (rather than expression) of TH molecules or to a dysfunction of TH protein transport from the substantia nigra to the striatum. The extent of striatal TH protein loss may be critical in determining DRD symptomatology and could contribute to gender-related incomplete penetrance of GCH1 mutations in GTPCH-deficient DRD families. Notwithstanding the discovery of the three causative loci for DRD, a therapeutic trial with low doses of levodopa is still the most practical approach to the diagnosis of this treatable disorder. The trial should be considered in all children with dystonic and/or parkinsonian symptoms or with unexplained gait disorders. Analyses of total biopterin and neopterin as well as neurotransmitter metabolites in CSF appear to be useful for the diagnosis of GTPCH-deficient DRD (the major form of DRD) and of TH-deficient DRD (the mild form of TH deficiency). Findings of the precise mechanism of striatal TH protein loss in GTPCH-deficient DRD, the actual status of dopaminergic systems in TH-deficient DRD, and the novel causative gene on the DYT14 locus will better define the pathogenesis of DRD.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMetabolism and Genetic DisordersFrench-language works237,207