Observational studyScientific reports2024
Comprehensive analysis of two hotspot codons in the TUBB4B gene and associated phenotypes.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Missense variants in KATNA1 alter microtubule dynamics and underlie dominant macular dystrophy.Research square · 2026Article
- Article
- A Novel Variant in TUBB4B Causes Progressive Cone-Rod Dystrophy and Early Onset Sensorineural Hearing Loss.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Mutation of beta-tubulin 4B gene (Molecular vision · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our purpose was to elucidate the genotype and ophthalmological and audiological phenotype in TUBB4B-associated inherited retinal dystrophy (IRD) and sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and to model the effects of all possible amino acid substitutions at the hotspot codons Arg390 and Arg391. Six patients from five families with heterozygous missense variants in TUBB4B were included in this observational study. Ophthalmological testing included best-corrected visual acuity, fundus examination, optical coherence tomography, fundus autofluorescence imaging, and full-field electroretinography (ERG). Audiological examination included pure-tone and speech audiometry in adult patients and auditory brainstem response testing in a child. Genetic testing was performed by disease gene panel analysis based on genome sequencing. The molecular consequences of the substitutions of residues 390 and 391 on TUBB4B and its interaction with α-tubulin were predicted in silico on its three-dimensional structure obtained by homology modelling. Two independent patients had amino acid exchanges at position 391 (p.(Arg391His) or p.(Arg391Cys)) of the TUBB4B protein. Both had a distinct IRD phenotype with peripheral round yellowish lesions with pigmented spots and mild or moderate SNHL, respectively. Yet the phenotype was milder with a sectorial pattern of bone spicules in one patient, likely due to a genetically confirmed mosaicism for p.(Arg391His). Three patients were heterozygous for an amino acid exchange at position 390 (p.(Arg390Gln) or p.(Arg390Trp)) and presented with another distinct retinal phenotype with well demarcated pericentral retinitis pigmentosa. All showed SNHL ranging from mild to severe. One additional patient showed a variant distinct from codon 390 or 391 (p.(Tyr310His)), and presented with congenital profound hearing loss and reduced responses in ERG. Variants at codon positions 390 and 391 were predicted to decrease the structural stability of TUBB4B and its complex with α-tubulin, as well as the complex affinity. In conclusion, the twofold larger reduction in heterodimer affinity exhibited by Arg391 substitutions suggested an association with the more severe retinal phenotype, compared to the substitution at Arg390.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.