Variant Synonymizer: Platform to identify mutations defined in different ways is available now!
Over 2,000 gene–disease validation summaries are now available—no login required!
This summary evaluates the association between PNPLA4 (HGNC:24887) and epilepsy (MONDO_0005027) as reported in a recent case study and supported by additional multi‐patient analyses. The primary evidence comes from a case report describing a maternally inherited 1.69 Mb Xp22.31 deletion that encompasses PNPLA4 among several other genes, with affected individuals presenting with easily controlled focal epilepsy and skin ichthyosis (PMID:37347056). The report highlights a traceable four‑generation history, indicating segregation of the deletion and a sex‑specific phenotypic pattern. Although the deletion implicates multiple candidate genes, PNPLA4 is considered a potential contributor given its inclusion in the affected region. This evidence establishes a preliminary link that remains under evaluation.
The genetic evidence stems from the identification of PNPLA4 within a defined deletion region in males with X‑linked recessive epilepsy. The case report documented two siblings as probands with the deletion and a broader literature review that identified 25 patients with epilepsy attributed to defects in the Xp22.31 region (PMID:37347056). However, the deletion affects several genes, and there was no independent PNPLA4‐specific variant provided. In addition, multi‑patient studies have identified PNPLA4 among heterozygous variants in individuals with neurodevelopmental conditions, although these findings are confounded by the presence of multiple candidate genes. This mixed genetic background limits the specificity of the evidence for PNPLA4.
The reported inheritance mode for the Xp22.31 deletion is X‑linked recessive, which is consistent with the sex‐specific presentation observed in the case report. Segregation analysis from the report indicates that the phenotype co‑segregates with the deletion over a traceable four‑generation pedigree, suggesting involvement of X‑linked factors. Despite this, the evidence for PNPLA4 is blurred by the concurrent deletion of adjacent genes. The overall family history supports some degree of segregation, but a definitive correlation solely with PNPLA4 remains to be established. Thus, while the familial aggregation adds support, the mutation specificity is limited.
Genetic evidence is further weakened by the absence of a directly reported, specific PNPLA4 HGVS variant meeting the explicit criteria (i.e. a complete coding change starting with “c.” and including a corresponding protein change). The available multi‑patient study did report several variants; however, none could be attributed exclusively to PNPLA4. This absence underlines the need for caution when interpreting the genetic data. Without a discrete variant, it is challenging to isolate the effect of PNPLA4 from that of its neighboring genes present in the deletion. Consequently, the variant spectrum for PNPLA4 in relation to epilepsy remains undefined in these reports.
Functional evidence, although available for PNPLA4 in other biological contexts, does not yet provide direct insight into its role in epileptogenesis. Studies in model systems and cellular assays have investigated related cellular processes including lipid metabolism and signaling pathways, yet none have directly recapitulated the epileptic phenotype. As a result, while functional assays in the literature lend biological plausibility to the gene’s involvement in neurodevelopment, they do not specifically confirm a pathogenic mechanism for epilepsy. This functional gap suggests that the reported experimental evidence is supportive but not conclusive regarding the PNPLA4‑epilepsy relationship. Further targeted studies are warranted.
In conclusion, the integration of genetic and experimental findings suggests a limited evidence for an association between PNPLA4 and epilepsy. The case report provides suggestive familial and segregation data while multi‑patient studies offer additional, albeit confounded, genetic insights. The absence of a specific PNPLA4 variant and direct functional assays in an epileptic context constrains the strength of the association. Additional research is needed to isolate the contribution of PNPLA4 from other genes in the Xp22.31 region. Key take‑home sentence: While current evidence hints at a role for PNPLA4 in epilepsy, clinicians should interpret its contribution with caution until gene‑specific data become available.
Gene–Disease AssociationLimitedThe association is based on a case report of an Xp22.31 deletion (involving PNPLA4 and several other genes) affecting multiple patients (PMID:37347056), but the lack of PNPLA4‑specific variants and isolated family segregation data limits the strength of this evidence. Genetic EvidenceLimitedGenetic evidence is confounded by the inclusion of multiple candidate genes in the deletion. No discrete PNPLA4 variant meeting the stringent HGVS criteria has been reported, diminishing the clarity of its causative role in epilepsy. Functional EvidenceLimitedAlthough functional studies in related systems provide biological plausibility, there are no experiments directly linking PNPLA4 dysfunction with epileptogenic mechanisms. |