Biomedical subjects

Stephen J Murphy

Publications and source records attributed to Stephen J Murphy.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Clinical and genetic characterization of constitutional MLH1 promoter hypermethylation: Implications for Lynch syndrome diagnosis.

PURPOSE: Constitutional MLH1 promoter hypermethylation (CMPH) is a relatively rare cause of Lynch syndrome. While most cases appear to be sporadic, some result from secondary epimutations, mainly caused by germline variants in the MLH1 promoter region. This study describes the clinical phenotype and genetic etiology of CMPH in the largest clinical cohort to date. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted for 422 individuals who underwent clinical CMPH testing. Promoter sequencing was used to identify the underlying variants. Long-read sequencing further characterized MLH1 promoter methylation. RESULTS: CMPH was identified in 15.6% of the study cohort participants. Of these, 63 exhibited clinical features consistent with Lynch syndrome. The most common associated cancers were colorectal cancer, followed by endometrial cancer, breast cancer, and sebaceous neoplasms. Mendelian inheritance of CMPH was observed in 5 families in the study cohort, indicating secondary epimutations. Promoter sequencing identified 8 unique germline variants, including 3 novel variants. Methylation analysis by long-read sequencing revealed mutant allele-specific promoter methylation for these variants. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide the most comprehensive review of the clinical phenotype associated with CMPH and highlight the significant contribution of promoter variants to its etiology. These results underscore the need to include the assessment of constitutional MLH1 promoter methylation for Lynch syndrome diagnosis.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Rethinking the pathogenicity of intragenic DMD duplications detected by carrier screening: High prevalence of nontandem duplications revealed by long-read sequencing.

PURPOSE: The pathogenicity of intragenic duplications depends on their structural configuration. Tandem duplications often disrupt reading frames and cause gene loss of function, whereas interspersed (nontandem) duplications are largely benign. When the configuration cannot be determined, current guidelines presume a tandem structure, leading to some laboratories automatically classifying such variants as likely pathogenic or pathogenic. This study evaluates the validity of this presumption for DMD, in patients with and without clinical indications of dystrophinopathy. METHODS: We performed high-coverage long-read genome sequencing on 15 patients with intragenic DMD duplications. A total of 4 patients had clinically indicated dystrophinopathy testing, whereas in the remaining 11 patients, the duplications were detected without clear indications of dystrophinopathy (eg, through carrier screening). RESULTS: All 4 patients with clinical indications had tandem duplications. In contrast, 64% (7/11) of the cases without such indications had interspersed duplications, with 4 subsequently reclassified as likely benign, 2 (likely) pathogenic, and 1 uncertain. These duplications were often complex, involving coduplications or codeletions with other regions. CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge the presumption that intragenic DMD duplications are predominantly in tandem. This highlights the need for a cautious variant interpretation approach, particularly in carrier screening and other settings in which variants are identified without indications of dystrophinopathy.

Humans↗