Cited by 165Connective tissue disorders researchDermatological and Skeletal DisordersGenomics and Rare Diseases

Comprehensive molecular analysis demonstrates type V collagen mutations in over 90% of patients with classic EDS and allows to refine diagnostic criteria

Symoens, Sofie, Syx, Delfien, Malfait, Fransiska, Callewaert, Bert, De Backer, Julie, Vanakker, Olivier, Coucke, Paul, De Paepe, Anne·2012·Human Mutation

Abstract

Type V collagen mutations are associated with classic Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS), but it is unknown for which proportion they account and to what extent other genes are involved. We analyzed COL5A1 and COL5A2 in 126 patients with a diagnosis or suspicion of classic EDS. In 93 patients, a type V collagen defect was found, of which 73 were COL5A1 mutations, 13 were COL5A2 mutations and seven were COL5A1 null-alleles with mutation unknown. The majority of the 73 COL5A1 mutations generated a COL5A1 null-allele, whereas one-third were structural mutations, scattered throughout COL5A1. All COL5A2 mutations were structural mutations. Reduced availability of type V collagen appeared to be the major disease-causing mechanism, besides other intra- and extracellular contributing factors. All type V collagen defects were identified within a group of 102 patients fulfilling all major clinical Villefranche criteria, that is, skin hyperextensibility, dystrophic scarring and joint hypermobility. No COL5A1/COL5A2 mutation was detected in 24 patients who displayed skin and joint hyperextensibility but lacked dystrophic scarring. Overall, over 90% of patients fulfilling all major Villefranche criteria for classic EDS were shown to harbor a type V collagen defect, which indicates that this is the major--if not only--cause of classic EDS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/humu.22137

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Symoens, S., Syx, D., Malfait, F., Callewaert, B., De Backer, J., Vanakker, O., Coucke, P., & De Paepe, A.
Affiliations
Ghent University Hospital (BE)
Venue
Human Mutation
Published
2012-07-05
Volume
33
Issue
10
Pages
1485-1493
ISSN
1059-7794 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2092877017
Cited by
165
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Mutation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Connective tissue disorders research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Dermatological and Skeletal Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
type V collagen, molecular diagnosis, skin hyperextensibility, joint hypermobility, structural mutations
MeSH terms
DNA Mutational Analysis, Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Humans, Mutation, Skin, Collagen Type V

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