Annemieke Aartsma-Rus
@oligogirl.bsky.social
350 followers 60 following 2.8K posts
Translating science from bench to bedside and from jargon to lay language
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
A limitation was that upper limb function was non included and that the late ambulatory subgroup was small. Still I appreciate the analysis and the message that trajectories depend more on status than age. Obviously with time the status will change, but not all x year olds have the same status.
Authors discuss that different outcomes showed different patterns. E.g. for the 6 minute walk distance shortly before ambulation loss there are large declines in walking distance, while rise from floor increases until it hits a plateau (and then patients become unable to do it altogether).
Declines ewer more severe for group 3 and up. For the rise from floor the time increased for higher groups as did the time to climb for stairs. Also the percentage of patients unable to rise from the floor was higher for higher groups and after 2 years compared to baseline for each group.
Patients were grouped based on how likely it was that they would lose ambulation from longest time (group 1) to shortest time (group 5). Group 1 patients stayed stable for 2 years and then started to drop in NSAA and 6 minute walk distance, while group 2-4 dropped from the start.
Authors here looked in 1031 ambulatory patients to describe their health state and compare it to trajectory. At baseline patients were 8 years old average and 84% were white. North star ambulatory assessment level was 23 points.
Functional status can predict how likely it is patients will lose ambulation shortly or over a longer period of time (e.g. time to rise from floor and distance walked/run in 10 meters). Project hercules has defined different states for ambulatory, transfer and nonambulatory (5 states) for Duchenne
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is characterized by progressive muscle function loss. Patients usually lose ambulation between the ages of 10 and 16, but there is heterogeneity between patients, so it is better to characterize by disease stage than age.
#apaperaday with delay as I got my Covid and flu shot this morning and then meetings ensued. Today's pick is from @journalnd.bsky.social by Muntoni et al on the characterization of ambulatory health states in Duchenne patients and how they predict loss of ambulation. DOI: 10.1177/22143602251364694
Checking variant databases is important as well (with the earlier mentioned caveat) and everyone should be aware that females can have dystrophinopathy as well and that family members of a patient can be a carrier. I appreciate the authors shared this information and the learnings!
This is especially important for duplications (as they may not be within the gene). Segregation analysis within the family can give insight in pathogenicity (if a healthy grandfather has the same variant, likely it is benign). Physical examination of the case is important to assess muscle problems
For some variants there are reports ranging from Duchenne to healthy and then it is difficult to classify the variant for a new case who is young. Authors conclude that when copy number variants are found in the DMD gene they have to first be validated by another technique.
Also there is a brain co-morbidity in a subset of patients & they may be analyzed due to developmental delay, which in fact is part of the dystrophinopathy sprectrum. Authors stress the need for good reporting in databases, where sometimes very little clinical information can be found for a variant
Authors discuss that with more genetic analyses done now at exome and genome wide levels incidental findings will happen more and more. Usually these analyses are done when children are very young, and muscular dystrophy symptoms may not yet be apparent.
In one female 2 duplications were found, but it was not clear if they are on the same chromosome or not. She had muscle symptoms, so it is possible they are on separate chromosomes and it is also possible that a partial deletion happened to overlap with the duplication
Some were not located in the DMD gene, while others were likely benign (e.g. exon 1-x --> still a functional protein can be produced probably). For a duplication of exon 45-51 an asymptomatic uncle was found.
There was also a case of a female dystrophinopathy with symptoms. Finally for some incidental findings, the variants were found on top of other syndromes (e.g. Angelman syndrome and female carrier of Duchenne variant). Authors could confirm the location of 11/13 duplication variants.
Some of the variants indeed caused Duchenne or Becker and this was confirmed when patients were clinically evaluated. For some however, no symptoms were (yet) present. Interestingly for 2 cases, healthy family members with the same variant were discovered: deletions of exon 2-9 and 50-51.
One in three variants are de novo, the rest is inherited. Authors here report on 32 copy number variations in the DMD gene that they detected as incidental findings: 19 deletions and 13 duplication variants. Validation was done with MLPA analysis which confirmed the variants in most cases.
Deletions in the DMD gene can cause Duchenne (usually out-of-frame) or Becker (usually in-frame), female dystrophinopathy (for a subset of mutation carriers) and occur in healthy individuals. For duplications, the same applies, & the duplicated region is not per se within the gene.
When individuals present with symptoms and it is not clear what the cause is, genome analysis is often done to see if a genetic cause can be identified. During these analyses sometimes also unexpected discoveries are done, e.g. deletions or duplications in the dystrophin encoding DMD gene.
#apaperaday Today's pick is from @worldmusclesociety.org journal Neuromuscular Disorders by LUMC colleagues Ginjaar et al on incidental findings of deletions and duplications in the DMD gene. Yuzu took a nap so no confetti making.DOI: 10.1016/j.nmd.2025.106219
I also do not like how authors used predictive software to see whether their model is working or not, without any experimental validation. e.g. We know Splice AI can be wrong - it is the best tool we have, but it is far from perfect.
I like the systematic approach with which authors started. However, they did this for 1 exon in 1 transcript and I am not sure this can then be extrapolated across other exons (also since different splicing factors are expressed in different cells).
Also there is no validation of the tool to see whether ASOs predicted to increase skipping or inclusion actually do this. Authors discuss that more work is needed as they now only focused on exons, and introns also play a role in splicing. Indeed.
They made DANGO, a tool to predict whether an ASO is likely to induce exon skipping or inclusion, which can be used to help design ASOs. Note that this tool does not take into account that the ASO needs to be able to bind to transcripts better than to their counterparts.