Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a severe, progressive disease that aff ects 1 in 3600–6000 live male births. Although guidelines are available for various aspects of DMD, comprehensive clinical care recommendations do not exist. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention selected 84 clinicians to develop care recommendations using the RAND Corporation–University of California Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. The DMD Care Considerations Working Group evaluated assessments and interventions used in the management of diagnostics, gastroenterology and nutrition, rehabilitation, and neuromuscular, psychosocial, cardiovascular, respiratory, orthopaedic, and surgical aspects of DMD. These recommendations, presented in two parts, are intended for the wide range of practitioners who care for individuals with DMD. They provide a framework for recognising the multisystem primary manifestations and secondary complications of DMD and for providing coordinated multidisciplinary care. In part 1 of this Review, we describe the methods used to generate the recommendations, and the overall perspective on care, pharmacological treatment, and psychosocial management.

/pdf/diagnosis-and-management-of-duchenne-muscular-dystrophy-part-1knypv9rvl.pdf

Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management

Before one starts the hunt for quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for a complex trait it is necessary to show that the trait is genetically influenced. This evidence is most likely to come from the classical twin study—the demonstration that monozygotic twins are more similar for the trait than dizygotic twins. The strengths and weaknesses of twin studies are discussed, and it is suggested that, far from becoming irrelevant with advances in molecular biology, they can improve the efficiency of QTL detection and play an important role in unravelling developmental genetic mechanisms

/pdf/a-twin-pronged-attack-on-complex-traits-3hqzp3hskw.pdf

A twin-pronged attack on complex traits

The inactive X chromosome differs from the active X in a number of ways; some of these, such as allocyclic replication and altered histone acetylation, are associated with all types of epigenetic silencing, whereas others, such as DNA methylation, are of more restricted use. These features are acquired progressively by the inactive X after onset of initiation. Initiation of X-inactivation is controlled by the X-inactivation center (Xic) and influenced by the X chromosome controlling element (Xce), which causes primary nonrandom X-inactivation. Other examples of nonrandom X-inactivation are also presented in this review. The definition of a major role for Xist, a noncoding RNA, in X-inactivation has enabled investigation of the mechanism leading to establishment of the heterochromatinized X-chromosome and also of the interactions between X-inactivation and imprinting as well as between X-inactivation and developmental processes in the early embryo.

X-chromosome inactivation in mammals

The use of the adjective "identical" rather than monozygotic leads to misunderstandings about the biology of monozygotic twinning. Most monozygotic twin pairs are not identical; there may be major discordance for birth weight, genetic disease, and congenital anomalies. These indicate that postzygotic events may lead to the formation of two or more cell clones in the inner cell mass and early embryo that actually stimulate the monozygotic twinning event. There is also evidence that there may be unequal allocation of numbers of cells to the monozygotic twins; this may have widespread implications for the cascade of developmental events during embryogenesis, formation, and vascularization of the placenta. Large-scale zygosity testing at birth could be the template for analysis of twin outcomes and their biologic causes.

Some causes of genotypic and phenotypic discordance in monozygotic twin pairs.

Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophies are collectively termed dystrophinopathy. Dystrophinopathy and severe childhood autosomal recessive muscular dystrophy (SCARMD) are clinically very similar and had not been distinguished in the early 20th century. SCARMD was first classified separately from dystrophinopathy due to differences in the mode of inheritance. Studies performed several years ago clarified some immunohistochemical and genetic characteristics of SCARMD, but many remained to be clarified. In 1994, the sarcoglycan complex was discovered among dystrophin-associated proteins. Subsequently, on the basis of our immunohistochemical findings which indicated that all components of the sarcoglycan complex are absent in SCARMD muscles, and the previous genetic findings, we proposed that a mutation of any one of the sarcoglycan genes leads to SCARMD. This hypothesis explained and predicted various characteristics of SCARMD at the molecular level, most of which have been verified by subsequent discoveries in our own as well as various other laboratories. SCARMD is now called sarcoglycanopathy, which is caused by a defect of any one of four different sarcoglycan genes, and thus far mutations in sarcoglycan genes have been documented in the SCARMD patients. In this review, the evolution of the concept of sarcoglycanopathy separate from that of dystrophinopathy is explained by comparing studies on these diseases.

From dystrophinopathy to sarcoglycanopathy: Evolution of a concept of muscular dystrophy

One of female MZ twins presented with muscular dystrophy. Physical examination, creatine phosphokinase levels, and muscle biopsy were consistent with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). However, because of her sex she was diagnosed as having limb-girdle muscular dystrophy. With cDNA probes to the DMD gene, a gene deletion was detected in the twins and their mother. The de novo mutation which arose in the mother was shown by novel junction fragments generated by HindIII, PstI, or TaqI when probed with cDNA8. Additional evidence of a large gene deletion was given by novel SfiI junction fragments detected by probes p20, J-Bir, and J-66 on pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). Immunoblot analysis of muscle from the affected twin showed dystrophin of normal size but of reduced amount. Immunofluorescent visualization of dystrophin revealed foci of dystrophin-positive fibers adjacent to foci of dystrophin-negative fibers. These data indicate that the affected twin is a manifesting carrier of an abnormal DMD gene, her myopathy being a direct result of underexpression of dystrophin. Cytogenetic analysis revealed normal karyotypes, eliminating the possibility of a translocation affecting DMD gene function. Both linkage analysis and DNA fingerprint analysis revealed that each twin has two different X chromosomes, eliminating the possibility of uniparental disomy as a mechanism for DMD expression. On the basis of methylation differences of the paternal and maternal X chromosomes in these MZ twins, we propose uneven lyonization (X chromosome inactivation) as the underlying mechanism for disease expression in the affected female.

N R Schneider

Papers

Skewed X inactivation in a female MZ twin results in Duchenne muscular dystrophy.