Defining the Genetic Landscape of Congenital Mirror Movements in 80 Affected Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Congenital mirror movements (CMM) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by involuntary movements from one side of the body that mirror voluntary movements on the opposite side. To date, five genes have been associated with CMM, namely DCC, RAD51, NTN1, ARHGEF7, and DNAL4. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to characterize the genetic landscape of CMM in a large group of 80 affected individuals. METHODS: We screened 80 individuals with CMM from 43 families for pathogenic variants in CMM genes. In large CMM families, we tested for presence of pathogenic variants in multiple affected and unaffected individuals. In addition, we evaluated the impact of three missense DCC variants on binding between DCC and Netrin-1 in vitro. RESULTS: Causal pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants were found in 35% of probands overall, and 70% with familial CMM. The most common causal gene was DCC, responsible for 28% of CMM probands and 80% of solved cases. RAD51, NTN1, and ARHGEF7 were rare causes of CMM, responsible for 2% each. Penetrance of CMM in DCC pathogenic variant carriers was 68% and higher in males than females (74% vs. 54%). The three tested missense variants (p.Ile164Thr; p.Asn176Ser; and p.Arg1343His) bind Netrin-1 similarly to wild type DCC. CONCLUSIONS: A genetic etiology can be identified in one third of CMM individuals, with DCC being the most common gene involved. Two thirds of CMM individuals were unsolved, highlighting that CMM is genetically heterogeneous and other CMM genes are yet to be discovered. © 2024 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

New interinstitutional, multimodal presurgical evaluation protocol associated with improved seizure freedom for poorly defined cases of focal epilepsy in children.

OBJECTIVE: In an attempt to improve postsurgical seizure outcomes for poorly defined cases (PDCs) of pediatric focal epilepsy (i.e., those that are not visible or well defined on 3T MRI), the authors modified their presurgical evaluation strategy. Instead of relying on concordance between video-electroencephalography and 3T MRI and using functional imaging and intracranial recording in select cases, the authors systematically used a multimodal, 3-tiered investigation protocol that also involved new collaborations between their hospital, the Montreal Children's Hospital, and the Montreal Neurological Institute. In this study, the authors examined how their new strategy has impacted postsurgical outcomes. They hypothesized that it would improve postsurgical seizure outcomes, with the added benefit of identifying a subset of tests contributing the most. METHODS: Chart review was performed for children with PDCs who underwent resection following the new strategy (i.e., new protocol [NP]), and for the same number who underwent treatment previously (i.e., preprotocol [PP]); ≥ 1-year follow-up was required for inclusion. Well-defined, multifocal, and diffuse hemispheric cases were excluded. Preoperative demographics and clinical characteristics, resection volumes, and pathology, as well as seizure outcomes (Engel class Ia vs > Ia) at 1 year postsurgery and last follow-up were reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-two consecutive NP patients were compared with 22 PP patients. There was no difference between the two groups for resection volumes, pathology, or preoperative characteristics, except that the NP group underwent more presurgical evaluation tests (p < 0.001). At 1 year postsurgery, 20 of 22 NP patients and 10 of 22 PP patients were seizure free (OR 11.81, 95% CI 2.00-69.68; p = 0.006). Magnetoencephalography and PET/MRI were associated with improved postsurgical seizure outcomes, but both were highly correlated with the protocol group (i.e., independent test effects could not be demonstrated). CONCLUSIONS: A new presurgical evaluation strategy for children with PDCs of focal epilepsy led to improved postsurgical seizure freedom. No individual presurgical evaluation test was independently associated with improved outcome, suggesting that it may be the combined systematic protocol and new interinstitutional collaborations that makes the difference rather than any individual test.