Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: estimation of prevalence in the Chinese population and analysis of genotype-phenotype association

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2453356/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: estimation of prevalence in the Chinese population and analysis of genotype-phenotype association

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2453356/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency (FBP1D) is a rare inborn error due to mutations in the FBP1 gene. The genetic spectrum of FBP1D in China is unknown, also nonspecific manifestations confuse disease diagnosis.

Materials & Methods

We collected 101 FBP1 variants from our cohort and public resources, and manually curated pathogenicity of these variants. Ninety-seven pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants were used in our cohort to estimate Chinese FBP1D prevalence by three methods: 1) carrier frequency, 2) permutation and combination, 3) Bayesian framework. Allele frequencies (AFs) of these variants in our cohort, China Metabolic Analytics Project (ChinaMAP) and gnomAD were compared to reveal the different hotspots in Chinese and other populations. Clinical and genetic information of 122 FBP1D patients from our cohort and published literature were collected to analyze the genotype-phenotypes association. Phenotypes of 68 hereditary fructose intolerance (HFI) patients from our previous study were used to compare the phenotypic differences between these two fructose metabolism diseases.

Result

The estimated Chinese FBP1D prevalence was 1/1,310,034. In the Chinese population, c.490G > A and c.355G > A had significantly higher AFs than in the non-Finland European population, and c.841G > A had significantly lower AF value than in the South Asian population (all P values < 0.05). The genotype-phenotype association analyses showed that patients carrying homozygous c.841G > A were more likely to present increased urinary glycerol, carrying two CNVs (especially homozygous exon1 deletion) were often with hepatic steatosis, carrying two missense variants were not likely to present fever, carrying compound heterozygous variants were usually with lethargy, and carrying homozygous variants were usually with ketosis and hepatic steatosis (all P values < 0.05). By comparing to phenotypes of HFI patients, FBP1D patients were more likely to present hypoglycemia, metabolic acidosis, and seizures (all P value < 0.05).

Conclusion

The prevalence of FBP1D in the Chinese population is extremely low. Genetic sequencing could effectively help to diagnose FBP1D.

Fructose-1

6-bisphosphatase deficiency

prevalence estimation

curation for pathogenic variants

newborn screening

allele frequency comparison

genotype-phenotype analysis

Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (FBPase) deficiency (FBP1D) is an inherited autosomal recessive (AR) disease caused by the FBP1 gene mutations, which leads to the FBPase reduction or deficiency[1, 2]. FBPase is a key enzyme of gluconeogenesis, and its reduction significantly reduce the endogenous formation of glucose from the available precursor, such as pyruvate, lactate, glycerol and alanine (gluconeogenic amino acids)[3]. This is because that the FBPase inactivation impairs liver formation of glucose from all gluconeogenic precursors[4]. FBP1D is also considered as an inborn error in the pathway of fructose metabolism[5]. In most cases, the main clinical manifestations are ketonic hypoglycemia, hyperlactacidemia and metabolic acidosis[6]. Other phenotypes include vomiting after eating fructose-related foods, epileptic seizure and impaired liver function displayed as elevated hepatic transaminase, hyperbilirubinemia, hepatomegaly, and hepatic steatosis. Severe phenotypes included reduced consciousness, coma, dyspnea, and death (often due to delayed diagnosis)[7]. Neurological complications were reported with inappropriate treatment[8]. Although no specific treatment for FBP1D nowadays, long-term prognosis is pretty good with early diagnosis and avoidance of hunger and infection, as well as dietary fructose restriction[4].

The prevalence of FBP1D is approximately 1/350,000 in Netherlands, 1/900,000 in France[9], 1/147,575 in Italy and 1/1,782,321 in Southern Brazilian[10]. In the America, the patients are estimated to be fewer than 5,000[11]. The FBP1D prevalence in the Chinese population remain unknown[12].

After literature review, we found different population had its own hotspots. For example, two missense mutations c.841G > A and c.472C > T are reported as the most common alleles in the India and Pakistan population[1, 2], c.958G > A and c.986T > C are the most frequent variants in the Southern Brazilian[10], while c.114_119dup is prevalent in Saudi Arabia[13], c.960_961insG and c.490G > A are common in Japan[8, 14]. The situation for the Turkish patients is significantly different, as the exon 1 deletion (NM_000507.4) is the most common variant and considered as the founder mutation in Turkish FBP1D patients. The hotspots in the Chinese population are unexplored.

To date, the relationship between genotype-phenotype in FBP1D patients keep ambiguous. Kilic et al. studied 10 patients from 9 families with FBP1D but no significant genotype and phenotype correlation was found[15]. One of the largest case report cohorts is Hasegawa Y, et al., which retrospectively analyzed phenotypes of 20 FBP1D patients[8]. They did not identify genotype and phenotype associations either. Previous studies have generally reported that the severity of the disease depend on the feeding strategy and infection condition of the individual[4, 15]. The genotype-phenotype correlation is still confusing due to the small sample size of previously reported cohorts, since most of the variants are sporadic, and the clinical manifestations and laboratory findings are heterogeneous.

In this study, we collected FBP1 variants and FBP1D patients from our Chinese Children's Rare Disease Genetic Testing Clinical Collaboration System (CCGT) and public resources to reveal genotypes, phenotypes and their relationship in Chinese and other populations. Furthermore, we compared the clinical phenotypes between FBP1D and another inborn error of fructose metabolism hereditary fructose intolerance (HFI). Our results gave a clue to the genotype-phenotype association of FBP1D.

Curation of FBP1 pathogenic variants and allele frequency analysis

After pathogenicity assessment of FBP1 variants collected from the Chinese Children's Rare Disease Genetic Testing Clinical Collaboration System (CCGT), Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD), ClinVar, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Web of Science, and PubMed, 97 P/LP variants were identified, including frameshift (35%, 34/97), missense (32%, 31/97), splicing (15%, 15/97), nonsense (10%, 10/97), CNV (5%, 5/97) and in-frame indel (2%, 2/97) variants (Fig. 1 and Additional file 1: Table S1). To compare allele frequency (AF) of these variants in Chinese population with other populations, we divided CCGT into two unrelated sub cohorts, the children cohort (CCGT_C) and the parents cohort (CCGT_P). Then, we excluded children diagnosed with FBP1D from CCGT_C and their parents from CCGT_P. Among the 97 P/LP variants, 38 have been documented in the CCGT, China Metabolic Analytics Project (ChinaMAP) and gnomAD (Additional file 1: Table S2). Eight of the 38 variants were observed in Chinese (Fig. 2). Of the eight variants, c.490G > A and c.355G > A had significantly higher AF in the Chinese population than in the non-East Asian populations, while c.841G > A had significantly lower AF value in the Chinese population than in the South Asian population (all P values < 0.05). In addition, c.490G > A is the most common variant in the Chinese population (AF in CCGT_C: 1/3216, in CCGT_P: 1/2232; and in ChinaMAP: 1/3025), while it has not been reported in African American, admixed American, Ashkenazi Jewish, Finnish in Finland and South Asian populations.

Estimation of FBP1D prevalence in the Chinese population

We estimated the FBP1D prevalence based on 20,904 pediatric patients in the CCGT_C cohort (12,771 males and 8,133 females) and 10,042 parental samples in the CCGT_P cohort (5,014 males and 5,028 females). The total number of individuals carrying P/LP FBP1 variants was 36 (25 males and 11 females) in the CCGT_C and 18 (11 males and 7 females) in the CCGT_P. Based on the carrier frequency, the estimated FBP1D prevalence were 1/1,348,695 in the CCGT_C and 1/1,244,960 in the CCGT_P. By the permutation and combination method, the estimated prevalence were 1/1,510,786 and 1/1,179,494 respectively. By the Bayesian framework, the estimated prevalence of FBP1D were 1/1,312,275 (95% confidence interval was 1/2,748,617 ~ 1/737,905) in the CCGT_C and 1/1,179,494 (95% confidence interval was 1/3,542,901 ~ 1/544,684) in the CCGT_P. In general, the estimated prevalence of FBP1D in the Chinese population is 1/1,310,034 by averaging all the above results (Table 1).

Table 1

FBP1D prevalence estimation in CCGT children cohort and parents cohort with estimated affected frequency by three methods
	Children Cohort	Parents Cohort
Total number	20904	10042
Gender (Female/Male)	8133/12771	5028/5014
Carrier with P/LP variants (Female/Male)	11/25	7/11
Carrier frequency	1/580	1/558
Method 1: carrier frequency	1/1348695	1/1244960
Method2: permutation and combination	1/1510786	1/1309631
Method 3: Bayesian framework (95% CI)	1/1312275 (1/2748617~ 1/737905)	1/1179494 (1/3542901~ 1/544684)
Average	1/1310034

Genotype and phenotype of six Chinese FBP1D patients

Five patients were diagnosed as FBP1D in the CCGT_C. Another published FBP1D patient diagnosed in our center from other cohort was also collected in this study by literature review[16]. Here we add detailed clinical phenotypes and prognosis of this patient (Table 2 and Additional file 2: Table S3). Of these six patients, two presented phenotypes in the neonatal period, two in their early infancy (< 1 year) and two in childhood. Hypoglycemic episodes was the first symptom for most patients (5/6, Table 2), mostly associated with fever or infection (4/5). Two children presented with nervous system symptoms, and their prognosis was not very optimistic, and even one child died. Based on clear genetic test results and typical clinical manifestations, all patients were diagnosed with FBP1D. After early dietary guidance (avoid feeding the fructose-related foods and avoid prolonged fasting) and avoiding infection or other triggering factors, most patients (4/6) did not present poor prognoses and developed well.

Table 2

Genotype and clinical manifestations of six Chinese FBP1D patients
ID	Mutations	Gender	Age (years)	Age of onset	Phenotypes at onset	Prognosis
1	c.355G > A (paternal), c.960_961insG (maternal)	Male	/	1 year and 8 months	Status epilepticus, vomiting, severe infection with fever	Death
2	c.490G > A (paternal), c.490G > A (maternal)	Female	7	3 years	Convulsions, unconsciousness, hypoglycemia, fever	With brief epileptic seizure
3	c.841G > A (paternal), c.778G > A (maternal)	Male	6	11 months	Rotavirus infection, hypoglycemia, metabolic acidosis, hepatomegaly	Without symptoms for 2 years
4	c.355G > A, exon1 deletion	Male	9	Neonatal	Episodic tachypnea, hypoglycaemic episodes, pneumonia	Occasional hypoglycemia
5	c.704del (paternal), c.959dup (maternal)	Male	8	Neonatal	Vomiting, hypoglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia	Occasional nighttime hypoglycemic attacks
6*	c.333 + 2T > G (paternal), c.333 + 2T > G (maternal)	Male	6	7 months	Hypoglycemia, lactic acidosis, metabolic acidosis, fever	Occasional vomiting and hypoglycemia
* This patient has been reported in Wang’s study [16].

(Table 2 should appear here.)

Analysis of genotype-phenotype relationship in 122 FBP1D patients

We collected genotype and phenotype of 122 FBP1D patients, including the six patients mentioned above and other 116 patients from literature review (Additional file 2: Table S3). The most common clinical phenotype was hypoglycemia (111/113, 98.2%), and then was metabolic acidosis (102/121, 84.3%). Other common phenotypes included vomiting (64/107, 59.8%), ketosis (61/83, 73%), hepatomegaly (54/89, 61%), fever (49/94, 52%), respiratory distress (30/51, 59%) and seizures (27/72, 37%). When comparing combinations of variants, patients carrying homozygous exon1 deletion were more likely to present hepatic steatosis than without these variants (OR = 5.4, P value = 0.028), while carrying homozygous c.841G > A were more likely to present increased urinary glycerol than without these variants (P value = 0.010) (Additional file 2: Table S4). Mutation types of all variants in the 122 FBP1D patients were classified into missense, nonsense, splicing, frameshift, in-frame indel and CNV (Additional file 2: Table S5). Two missense variants were the most common mutation type combination in FBP1D patients (48/122, 39.3%), then were two frameshift variants (22/122, 18.0%) and two CNVs (15/122, 12.3%). For mutation type-phenotype analyses, we found that patients carrying two CNVs were more likely to present hepatic steatosis (OR = 17.9, P value = 0.009), and carrying two missense variants were not likely to present fever (OR = 0.16, P value = 0.001). For zygosity-phenotype analyses, patients carrying compound heterozygous pathogenic variants were more likely to present lethargy (P value = 0.040), and patients carrying homozygous pathogenic variants were more likely to present ketosis (P value = 0.007) and hepatic steatosis (P value = 0.015) (Additional file 2: Table S6).

Comparison of clinical manifestations between FBP1D and HFI

Hereditary fructose intolerance (HFI) is also a severe inborn errors of fructose metabolism caused by mutations in ALDOB gene. We extracted 33 common clinical phenotypes of FBP1D and 35 common clinical phenotypes of HFI from OMIM and HPO. Then we thoroughly calculated the frequency of these phenotypes in the 122 collected FBP1D patients and 68 HFI patients from our previous study[5]. Seventeen phenotypes are identical in these two diseases (Additional file 3: Table S7), while FBP1D has 16 relatively distinctive phenotypes and HFI has 18 relatively distinctive phenotypes (Additional file 3: Table S8). Though FBP1D and HFI are both metabolism disorders, FBP1D patients markedly have hypoglycemia and metabolic acidosis than HFI patients (OR = 88 and 7 respectively, all P value < 0.05). Besides, FBP1D patients more probably have seizures and coma than HFI patients (all P value < 0.05). Interestingly, we found that HFI patients are more likely to present diarrhea than FBP1D patients, though the difference was not significant after statistical adjustment. Comparing to HFI, fever and ketosis are considered as relatively distinctive phenotypes of FBP1D.

In this study, we collected and curated 97 P/LP variants of FBP1. Similar with Japanese population, c.490G > A and c.960_961insG are common in Chinese, besides c.355G > A has significantly higher AF in Chinese compare with non-Finland European populations. The most frequent P/LP FBP1 variant of Chinese is c.490G > A, while the missense variant c.841G > A is the most common in South Asian and the CNV exon1 deletion is the most common in Turkish population[15]. Nonetheless, many FBP1D patients carry sporadic novel variants. For example, Lebigot et al. reported a Greece patient with homozygous c.865dupA variant[17]. None carrier of this variant has been observed in gnomAD, CCGT or ChinaMAP. Pinheiro et al. reported two novel variants found in Brazilian patients: c.958G > A and c.986T > C[10]. None of these variants has been recorded in gnomAD, CCGT or ChinaMAP either. This may due to the conservation of FBP1. The observed/expected (oe) value of FBP1 loss-of-function variants from gnomAD is 0.32 (90% CI: 0.15–0.75), lower than ALDOB (0.68 and 90% CI is 0.43–1.1), indicating FBP1 is under stronger selection than ALDOB. FBP1 may involve more pathways than gluconeogenesis and more studies needed. Considering the conservation of FBP1 and the high frequency of novel variants on it, sequencing the entire gene would be a better way to reduce missed diagnosis rate when patients are suspected with FBP1D.

The estimated prevalence of FBP1D in the Chinese population was extremely low. However, the occurrence of FBP1D patients in our cohort was considerably high (FBP1D patients in CCGT_C: 1/4182 vs. estimated prevalence: 1/1310034). Since gluconeogenesis is activated after a moderate period of fasting in adults but more quickly in newborns or young children, who do not have enough glycogen stocks to provide their glucose needs through glycogenolysis only, most patients appear manifestations in their early age, and usually from the first day of life. As one of the largest children hospital in China, undiagnosed patients, especially neonates, with complicated phenotypes were often sent to our hospital, causing the accumulation of rare disease patients. To avoid bias in carrier analysis, we excluded FBP1D patients and their relatives from our study cohorts to estimate prevalence.

We collected 122 FBP1D patients from literature review and the CCGT database, and analyzed the relationship between clinical phenotypes and genotypes, including variant sites, mutation types, and zygosity. Metabolic abnormalities were the chief symptoms in the FBP1D patients, additional symptoms involved digestive, respiratory and nervous system. Missense variant was the most common mutation type in FBP1D patients. Patients carrying homozygous exon1 deletion were more likely to present hepatic steatosis. Disruption of the fbp1 gene in mice alters liver metabolic homeostasis and supports tumorigenesis, and eventually develop hepatomegaly and steatosis. Similar mechanisms may operate in FBP1D patients due to metabolic stress [6]. Our results gave a clue to the genotype-phenotype association of FBP1D. However, most published cases only reported the chief symptoms and do not mention whether they have other symptoms, introducing much missing values for genotype-phenotype analysis and thus result in non-significant results. More comprehend records of patients, especially whether they do not have some phenotypes, would help to clarify the genotype-phenotype relationship.

Previous studies have shown that the differential diagnoses between FBP1D and HFI could be very difficult according to clinical manifestations, but the tolerance to fructose in FBP1D is higher than in patients with HFI[4]. In our study, we found that the FBP1D patients more likely manifest hypoglycemia, metabolic acidosis and seizures than HFI patients. Besides, fever is a typical trigger for FBP1D comparing to HFI. FBPsae is not only an enzyme in the fructose metabolism pathway, but also a key enzyme in the gluconeogenesis pathway. Pathogenic FBP1 gene mutations impair FBPase activity, causing patients unable to effectively metabolize pyruvate and lactate to glucose for energy demand during fasting or infection, leading to hypoglycemia and metabolic acidosis[3]. Long-term hypoglycemia can cause hypoglycemic encephalopathy, thereby showing symptoms of seizures. The different functions of FBPase and aldolase B lead to the different clinical manifestations between the two diseases. Genetic testing of variants in genes is a practical method for differential diagnosis.

The prevalence of FBP1D is extremely low in China, c.490G > A and c.355G > A were hotspots of FBP1 in Chinese. Hypoglycemia is a typical symptom in FBP1D patients, additional remarkable symptoms including hepatomegaly, fever, respiratory distress and seizures. Genetic sequencing is an effective method for diagnosis of FBP1D.

Data acquisition for CCGT

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (2022 − 215) of Fudan University Children's Hospital. CCGT is one of the largest exome genetic databases of the Chinese population, which consists of children suspected of having genetic diseases and their parents. CCGT is an internal database and divides into children cohort (CCGT_C) and parents cohort (CCGT_P).

The CCGT cohort was the same as in our previous studies, and the processing steps can be found in those studies[5, 18]. In brief, we consulted and obtained the informed consent of the patient's parents. Everyone received WES or clinical exome sequencing (CES), both of which covered the exon region and exon–intron splicing junction region (deep intron to 15 bp) of FBP1 genes. Both tests were sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq X10 with 150 bp paired-end sequencing. Genetic diagnosis of FBP1D is conducted by experienced clinicians and genetic consultants according to ACMG guidelines. For the prevalence estimation and AF comparison of FBP1D, we excluded the diagnosed children from CCGT_C. As none of their parents ever took an ES testing, no individual was excluded from CCGT_P.

Literature search of FBP1D-related studies

PubMed and Web of Science were searched using the terms “fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency”, “fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency and case report”, “FBP1 mutation”, and “FBP1 variant” between 1970 (first described) and July 2022[3]. We applied strict literature inclusion criteria to make a more accurate conclusion. Our literature inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) the literature reported cases of FBP1D; 2) the nomenclature of variants met the requirements of HGVS[19]; 3) the variants were evaluated as P/LP according to ACMG guidelines[20, 21]; and 4) the literature represented high-quality studies. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) lack of information on genotype or phenotype; 2) repeated cases. According to those criteria, a total of 729 articles were found, of which 31 were finally included in this study[1–3, 7–10, 13–17, 22–40] and 117 published FBP1D patients were collected for genotype-phenotype association studies.

Curation of P/LP variants in the FBP1 gene

We included reported variants of the FBP1 gene from HGMD (level DM/DM?), ClinVar (level P/LP), and the FBP1D-related literature mentioned above. No new mutation sites were detected in our cohorts. All mutation sites were curated by at least two experienced geneticists. After manually checking, 97 out of the 101 variants were curated at the P/LP level.

Estimation of FBP1D prevalence in the Chinese population

We estimated the FBP1D prevalence by three strategies as described in our previous studies[5, 18]. Method 1 based on the carrier frequencies of individuals in CCGT_C and CCGT_P, Hardy-Weinberg principle is used to calculate the prevalence. Method 2 based on the principle of permutation and combination in mathematics. In this strategy, the probability of affected children is calculated by randomly selecting male individuals carrying the P/LP FBP1 variants and female individuals also carrying the P/LP FBP1 variants. Method 3 based on the Bayesian framework with 95% confidence interval given.

Collection of public FBP1D variant frequency

ChinaMAP was introduced as an external database of Chinese population. It is based on cohort studies across diverse regions and ethnic groups with metabolic phenotypic data in China, and analysis of the whole genome sequencing data in 10,588 healthy individuals[41]. It is one of the biggest public Chinese population data we can access now.

The AF of the FBP1 gene in other populations were obtained from the gnomAD[42]. The gnomAD database collects sequencing data of healthy individuals from various races. South Asian, East Asian, African American, Ashkenazi Jewish, admixed American, Finnish in Finland, and non-Finland European populations in gnomAD were included.

Data acquisition for studies of genotype-phenotype relationships and comparison with HFI

Common phenotypes of FBP1D and HFI were figured out from the HPO project[43] and OMIM[44]. To compare with FBP1D, elevated hepatic transaminase was divided from abnormal liver function tests and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia was divided from jaundice in HFI common phenotypes. We recorded the genotype and whether they had the common phenotypes of the 122 FBP1D patients from the CCGT and the published literature mentioned above. The genotypes were further grouped by variants’ mutation types and zygosities. Frequencies of HFI common phenotypes were obtained from 68 HFI patients collected in our previous study[5].

Statistical analyses

All statistical analysis was performed by R version 4.0.3. Chi-square test (λ2.test) was used by default. When the conditions are not met, Fisher's exact test was used. P values were adjusted by “fdr” strategy for multiple tests.

FBP1D: fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency; FBPase: fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase; AR: autosomal recessive; CCGT: Chinese Children's Rare Disease Genetic Testing Clinical Collaboration System; AF: allele frequency; HGMD: Human Gene Mutation Database; HFI: hereditary fructose intolerance; CNKI: China National Knowledge Infrastructure; CES: clinical exome sequencing; WES: whole-exome sequencing; P/LP: pathogenic/likely pathogenic; VUS: variant of unknown significance; ChinaMAP: China Metabolic Analytics Project; HPO: Human Phenotype Ontology; oe: observed/expected

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Children's Hospital of Fudan University. Informed consent was signed by the patient's parents in the clinic or ward. The study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Helsinki declaration.

Consent for publication

All the patients included signed the consent for publication.

Availability of data and materials statements

The data that support the findings of this study are either included in the article (or in its supplementary files) or available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by grants from 2020ZBDL14, Cohort project of Specialized Disease, Clinical Research Center, Children's Hospital of Fudan University.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to the patients and their families for their trust in our laboratory. Thank the bioinformatics team members of our laboratory for their data analysis.

Authors’ Affiliations

Children's Hospital & Institutes of Biomedical Sciences, Fudan University, National Children's Medical Center, Shanghai, China

Qi Ni, Wenhao Zhou & Xinran Dong

Center for Molecular Medicine, Children's Hospital of Fudan University, National Children's Medical Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Qi Ni, Meiling Tang, Yulan Lu, Bingbing Wu, Huijun Wang & Xinran Dong

Division of Neonatology, Children's Hospital of Fudan University, National Children's Medical Center, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.

Xiang Chen & Wenhao Zhou

Authors’ Contributions

XD and WZ designed the study. XD, QN and YL interpreted medical exome/genome results and conducted analysis on the aggregated large cohort data. QN, MT, XC, BW and HW collected, supervised, and reviewed the clinical data. QN, MT and XC wrote the original manuscript draft. XD and WZ supervised the study, critically reviewed, and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wenhao Zhou or Xinran Dong.

Yasir Zahoor M, et al. Genetic Analysis of Tyrosinemia Type 1 and Fructose-1, 6 Bisphosphatase Deficiency Affected in Pakistani Cohorts. Fetal Pediatr Pathol. 2020;39(5):430–40.
Bhai P, et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of Indian patients with fructose-1, 6-bisphosphatase deficiency: Identification of a frequent variant (E281K). Ann Hum Genet. 2018;82(5):309–17.
Emecen Sanli M, et al. Fructose 1,6 bisphosphatase deficiency: outcomes of patients in a single center in Turkey and identification of novel splice site and indel mutations in FBP1. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2022;35(4):497–503.
Tran C. Inborn Errors of Fructose Metabolism. What Can We Learn from Them? Nutrients. 2017;9(4):356.
Tang M, et al. Estimation of hereditary fructose intolerance prevalence in the Chinese population. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2022;17(1):326.
Gorce M, et al. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency causes fatty liver disease and requires long-term hepatic follow-up. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2022;45(2):215–22.
Moey LH, et al. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency as a cause of recurrent hypoglycemia and metabolic acidosis: Clinical and molecular findings in Malaysian patients. Pediatr Neonatol. 2018;59(4):397–403.
Yukihiro Hasegawa, et al. Intravenous glycerol therapy should not be used in patients with unrecognized fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Pediatr Int. 2003;45:5–9.
Cao J, Pan J. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: A pediatric case report. Pediatr Neonatol. 2022;63(2):204–5.
Pinheiro FC, et al. Genetic analysis of patients with fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Gene. 2019;699:102–9.
Center GaRDI. i>https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/2400/fructose-16-bisphosphatase-deficiency. Accessed 01 Nov 2022.
Yi C, Xie J. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Endokrynol Pol; 2022.
Salih RM, et al. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency with confirmed molecular diagnosis. An important cause of hypoglycemia in children. Saudi Med J. 2020;41(2):199–202.
Kikawa Y, et al. Identification of genetic mutations in Japanese patients with fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;61(4):852–61.
Kilic M, et al. Exon 2 deletion represents a common mutation in Turkish patients with fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Metab Brain Dis. 2019;34(5):1487–91.
Wang H, et al. Optimized trio genome sequencing (OTGS) as a first-tier genetic test in critically ill infants: practice in China. Hum Genet. 2020;139(4):473–82.
Lebigot E, et al. Fructose 1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: clinical, biochemical and genetic features in French patients. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2015;38(5):881–7.
Qi Ni XC, Ping Zhang L, Yang Y, Lu F, Xiao B, Wu H, Wang W, Zhou, Dong X. Systematic estimation of cystic fibrosis prevalence in Chinese and genetic spectrum comparison to Caucasians. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 2022, 129(17). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-022-02279-9, 2022: p. 1–11.
den Dunnen JT, et al. HGVS Recommendations for the Description of Sequence Variants: 2016 Update. Hum Mutat. 2016;37(6):564–9.
Richards S, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405–24.
Abou Tayoun AN, et al. Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion. Hum Mutat. 2018;39(11):1517–24.
Pinheiro FC, et al. The fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency and the p.(Lys204ArgfsTer72) variant. Genet Mol Biol. 2021;44(2):e20200281.
Afroze B, et al. Transient pseudo-hypertriglyceridemia: a useful biochemical marker of fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Eur J Pediatr. 2013;172(9):1249–53.
Asberg C, et al. Fructose 1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: enzyme and mutation analysis performed on calcitriol-stimulated monocytes with a note on long-term prognosis. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2010;33(Suppl 3):S113–21.
Beatty ME, et al. Fructose-1,6-diphosphatase deficiency and glyceroluria: one possible etiology for GIS. Mol Genet Metab. 2000;69(4):338–40.
Devaney R, et al. Fructose 1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency as a cause of childhood interstitial lung disease. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56(7):2362–5.
Eren E, et al. Novel fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase gene mutation in two siblings. DNA Cell Biol. 2013;32(11):635–9.
Faiyaz-Ul-Haque M, et al. Novel FBP1 gene mutations in Arab patients with fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. Eur J Pediatr. 2009;168(12):1467–71.
Herzog B, et al. Novel mutations in patients with fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999;22(2):132–8.
Kamate M et al. Fructose-1,6-diphosphatase deficiency: a treatable neurometabolic disorder. BMJ Case Rep, 2014. 2014.
Kato S, et al. Pitfall in the Diagnosis of Fructose-1,6-Bisphosphatase Deficiency: Difficulty in Detecting Glycerol-3-Phosphate with Solvent Extraction in Urinary GC/MS Analysis. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2015;237(3):235–9.
Kikawa Y, et al. Identification of a genetic mutation in a family with fructose-1,6- bisphosphatase deficiency. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995;210(3):797–804.
Lee H, et al. Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency presented with complex febrile convulsion. Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2019;39(8):533–6.
Li N et al. Clinical and Molecular Characterization of Patients with Fructose 1,6-Bisphosphatase Deficiency.Int J Mol Sci, 2017. 18(4).
Mahmut Cerkez, Ergoren*, et al. A rare case of fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: a delayed diagnosis story. Turk J Biochem. 2020;45(5):613–6.
Matsuura T, et al. Two newly identified genomic mutations in a Japanese female patient with fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase (FBPase) deficiency. Mol Genet Metab. 2002;76(3):207–10.
Moon S, et al. Novel compound heterozygous mutations in the fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase gene cause hypoglycemia and lactic acidosis. Metabolism. 2011;60(1):107–13.
Samprathi M, et al. Novel Mutation with Fructose-1,6-Bisphosphatase Deficiency. Indian J Pediatr. 2021;88(5):505.
Sharma AG, et al. Novel fructose bisphosphatase 1 gene mutation presenting as recurrent episodes of vomiting in an Indian child. J Postgrad Med. 2018;64(3):180–2.
Tavil B, Sipahi T. Fructose 1,6 diphosphatase deficiency in a Turkish infant. Eur J Pediatr. 2003;162(10):719–20.
Cao Y et al. The ChinaMAP analytics of deep whole genome sequences in 10,588 individuals. 30, 2020. 9: p.717–731.
Karczewski KJ, et al. The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans. Nature. 2020;581(7809):434–43.
Köhler S, et al. The human phenotype ontology in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D1207–17.
McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic, Medicine JHU. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man. 2021; Available from: https://omim.org/. Accessed 01 Nov 2022.

Additionalfile1.xlsx
Additional file 1: includes Table S1, manually curated FBP1variants’ pathogenicity, and Table S2, allele frequencies of 97 pathogenic variants in different populations.
Additionalfile2.xlsx
Additional file 2: includes Table S3, summary of genotype-phenotype information of 122 FBP1D patients, Table S4, relationship between variant sites and phenotypes, Table S5, relationship between mutation types and phenotypes, and Table S6, relationship between zygosity and phenotypes.
Additionalfile3.xlsx
Additional file 3: includes Table S7, the identical phenotypes of FBP1D and HFI patients, and Table S8, the distinctive phenotypes of FBP1D and HFI patients.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase deficiency: estimation of prevalence in the Chinese population and analysis of genotype-phenotype association

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Background

Materials & Methods

Result

Conclusion

Figures

Introduction

Results

Estimation of FBP1D prevalence in the Chinese population

Genotype and phenotype of six Chinese FBP1D patients

Analysis of genotype-phenotype relationship in 122 FBP1D patients

Comparison of clinical manifestations between FBP1D and HFI

Discussion

Conclusions

Materials And Methods

Data acquisition for CCGT

Estimation of FBP1D prevalence in the Chinese population

Collection of public FBP1D variant frequency

Data acquisition for studies of genotype-phenotype relationships and comparison with HFI

Statistical analyses

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1