Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease and related neuropathies: Mutation distribution and genotype‐phenotype correlation

Boerkoel, Cornelius F., Takashima, Hiroshi, Garcia, Carlos A., Olney, Richard K., Johnson, John, Berry, Katherine, Russo, Paul, Kennedy, Shelley, Teebi, Ahmad S., Scavina, Mena, Williams, Lowell L., Mancias, Pedro, Butler, Ian J., Krajewski, Karen, Shy, Michael, Lupski, James R.·2002·Annals of Neurology

Abstract

Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease (CMT) is a genetically heterogeneous disorder that has been associated with alterations of several proteins: peripheral myelin protein 22, myelin protein zero, connexin 32, early growth response factor 2, periaxin, myotubularin related protein 2, N‐myc downstream regulated gene 1 product, neurofilament light chain, and kinesin 1B. To determine the frequency of mutations in these genes among patients with CMT or a related peripheral neuropathy, we identified 153 unrelated patients who enrolled prior to the availability of clinical testing, 79 had a 17p12 duplication (CMT1A duplication), 11 a connexin 32 mutation, 5 a myelin protein zero mutation, 5 a peripheral myelin protein 22 mutation, 1 an early growth response factor 2 mutation, 1 a periaxin mutation, 0 a myotubularin related protein 2 mutation, 1 a neurofilament light chain mutation, and 50 had no identifiable mutation; the N‐myc downstream regulated gene 1 and the kinesin 1B gene were not screened for mutations. In the process of screening the above cohort of patients as well as other patients for CMT‐causative mutations, we identified several previously unreported mutant alleles: two for connexin 32, three for myelin protein zero, and two for peripheral myelin protein 22. The peripheral myelin protein 22 mutation W28R was associated with CMT1 and profound deafness. One patient with a CMT2 clinical phenotype had three myelin protein zero mutations (I89N+V92M+I162M). Because one‐third of the mutations we report arose de novo and thereby caused chronic sporadic neuropathy, we conclude that molecular diagnosis is a necessary adjunct for clinical diagnosis and management of inherited and sporadic neuropathy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ana.10089

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Boerkoel, C. F., Takashima, H., Garcia, C. A., Olney, R. K., Johnson, J., Berry, K., Russo, P., Kennedy, S., Teebi, A. S., Scavina, M., Williams, L. L., Mancias, P., Butler, I. J., Krajewski, K., Shy, M., & Lupski, J. R.
Venue
Annals of Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-12-13
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
190-201
ISSN
  • 0364-5134 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-8249
OpenAlex
W2119124845
Cited by
276
References
0
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease and related neuropathies: Mutation distribution and genotype‐phenotype correlation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ana.10089
The paper
Boerkoel, C. F., Takashima, H., Garcia, C. A., Olney, R. K., Johnson, J., Berry, K., Russo, P., Kennedy, S., Teebi, A. S., Scavina, M., Williams, L. L., Mancias, P., Butler, I. J., Krajewski, K., Shy, M., & Lupski, J. R. (2002). Charcot‐Marie‐Tooth disease and related neuropathies: Mutation distribution and genotype‐phenotype correlation. Annals of Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ana.10089

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.