Variable Expression of GABAA Receptor Subunit Gamma 2 Mutation in a Nuclear Family Displaying Developmental and Encephalopathic Phenotype

Mutations in GABA_A receptor subunit genes (GABRs) are a major etiology for developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs). This article reports a case of a genetic abnormality in GABRG2 and updates the pathophysiology and treatment development for mutations in DEEs based on recent advances. Mutations in GABRs, especially in GABRA1, GABRB2, GABRB3, and GABRG2, impair GABAergic signaling and are frequently associated with DEEs such as Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, as GABAergic signaling is critical for early brain development. We here present a novel association of a microdeletion of GABRG2 with a diagnosed DEE phenotype. We characterized the clinical phenotype and underlying mechanisms, including molecular genetics, EEGs, and MRI. We then compiled an update of molecular mechanisms of GABR mutations, especially the mutations in GABRB3 and GABRG2 attributed to DEEs. Genetic therapy is also discussed as a new avenue for treatment of DEEs through employing antisense oligonucleotide techniques. There is an urgent need to define treatment targets and explore new treatment paradigms for the DEEs, as early deployment could alleviate long-term disabilities and improve quality of life for patients. This study highlights biomolecular targets for future therapeutic interventions, including via both pharmacological and genetic approaches.

Diagnostic Yield and Cost-Effectiveness of "Dynamic" Exome Analysis in Epilepsy with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Tertiary-Center Experience in Northern Italy

Background: The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques in clinical practice led to a significant advance in gene discovery. We aimed to describe diagnostic yields of a “dynamic” exome-based approach in a cohort of patients with epilepsy associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, observational study on 72 probands. All patients underwent a first diagnostic level of a 135 gene panel, a second of 297 genes for inconclusive cases, and finally, a whole-exome sequencing for negative cases. Diagnostic yields at each step and cost-effectiveness were the objects of statistical analysis. Results: Overall diagnostic yield in our cohort was 37.5%: 29% of diagnoses derived from the first step analysis, 5.5% from the second step, and 3% from the third. A significant difference emerged between the three diagnostic steps (p < 0.01), between the first and second (p = 0.001), and the first and third (p << 0.001). The cost-effectiveness plane indicated that our exome-based “dynamic” approach was better in terms of cost savings and higher diagnostic rate. Conclusions: Our findings suggested that “dynamic” NGS techniques applied to well-phenotyped individuals can save both time and resources. In patients with unexplained epilepsy comorbid with NDDs, our approach might maximize the number of diagnoses achieved.