Mutations in <scp><i>KRT10</i></scp> in epidermolytic acanthoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidermolytic acanthoma (EA) is a rare acquired lesion demonstrating a characteristic histopathological pattern of epidermal degeneration referred to as epidermolytic hyperkeratosis (EHK). On histopathological analysis, EA appears nearly identical to inherited EHK-associated dermatoses such as epidermolytic ichthyosis and ichthyosis bullosa of Siemens. While it has been speculated that EA is caused by mutations in KRT10, KRT1, or KRT2 found in these inherited dermatoses, none have yet been identified. Herein, we aim to identify the contributions of keratin mutations to EA. METHODS: Using genomic DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded samples from departmental archives, we evaluated a discovery cohort using whole-exome sequencing (WES) and assessed remaining samples using Sanger sequencing screening and restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis. RESULTS: DNA from 16/20 cases in our sample was of sufficient quality for polymerase chain reaction amplification. WES of genomic DNA from lesional tissue revealed KRT10 c.466C > T, p.Arg156Cys mutations in 2/3 samples submitted for examination. RFLP analysis of these samples as well as eight additional samples confirmed the mutations identified via WES and identified four additional cases with Arg156 mutations. In sum, 6/11 screened cases showed hotspot mutation in KRT10. CONCLUSIONS: Hotspot mutations in the Arg156 position of KRT10, known to cause epidermolytic ichthyosis, also underlie EA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".