Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jul 23;16(7):e0255011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255011

Clinical and genetic spectra in patients with dystrophinopathy in Korea: A single-center study

UnKyu Yun 1, Seung-Ah Lee 2, Won Ah Choi 3, Seong-Woong Kang 3, Go Hun Seo 4, Jung Hwan Lee 5, Goeun Park 6, Sujee Lee 6, Young-Chul Choi 2, Hyung Jun Park 2,*
Editor: Michael Kyba7
PMCID: PMC8301650  PMID: 34297739

Abstract

Dystrophinopathy is a group of inherited phenotypes arising from pathogenic variants in DMD. We evaluated the clinical and genetic characteristics of Korean patients with genetically confirmed dystrophinopathy. We retrospectively reviewed medical records (January 2004-September 2020) from the myopathy database maintained at the study hospital and found 227 patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy. Clinical phenotypes included 120 (53%) Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) cases, 20 (9%) intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD) cases, 65 (29%) Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) cases, 18 (8%) undetermined phenotypes, and 4 (2%) symptomatic carriers. The median ages at symptom onset and diagnosis were 5.0 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.8–8.0) and 12.0 years (IQR: 7.0–21.0), respectively. Total manual muscle test (MMT) scores decreased annually in patients with DMD, IMD, and BMD. Overall, when age increased by 1 year, total MMT scores decreased on average by -1.978, -1.681, and -1.303 in patients with DMD (p<0.001), IMD (p<0.001), and BMD (p<0.001), respectively. Exonic deletion and duplication were reported in 147 (67%) and 31 (14%) of the 218 unrelated probands, respectively. A total of 37 different small sequence variants were found in 40 (18%) of the 218 probands. The reading frame rule was applicable to 142 (94%) of the 151 probands. The present results highlight the long-term natural history and genetic spectrum of dystrophinopathy in a large-scale Korean cohort.

Introduction

Dystrophinopathy is a group of inherited phenotypes arising from pathogenic variants in DMD [1, 2]. DMD is one of the largest human genes, comprising 79 exons and 7 promoters, with more than 2.5 million base pairs on chromosome Xp21.2 [35]. More than 7,000 different variants in DMD have been reported to date (https://databases.lovd.nl/shared/genes/DMD). The most common changes in DMD are exonic deletions, accounting for 69% of all dystrophin mutations. Exonic duplications occur in approximately 11% of patients; the remaining 20% are small sequence variants [6].

Dystrophinopathy is the most common type of muscular dystrophy in children, with a prevalence of 21.2/100,000 in school-aged boys [7]. It is characterized by progressive muscle degeneration and weakness. The clinical spectrum of dystrophinopathy is highly variable, presenting as severe Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), milder Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), X-linked dilated cardiomyopathy, and symptomatic female carriers: these clinical phenotypes appear to be related to the amount of dystrophin in skeletal muscle [8, 9]. Patients with dystrophinopathy typically experience muscle weakness, along with cardiac, respiratory, and orthopedic complications of varying degrees. Currently, there are no curative therapies for dystrophinopathy. However, multidisciplinary care planning, including corticosteroids, cardiac medications, orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation, and assisted ventilation, has been found to improve quality of life and clinical outcomes, delaying death in patients with DMD into their 30s or 40s [10, 11].

Recently, various therapies based on molecular mechanisms, including gene therapy, cell therapy, read-through drugs, and antisense oligonucleotides for exon-skipping, have been studied and subjected to clinical trials: of these, four antisense oligonucleotide drugs (eteplirsen, golodirsen, viltolarsen, and casimersen) have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in treating dystrophinopathy [1215]. As such, genetic diagnosis of dystrophinopathy is becoming increasingly important. However, there are few studies on the pathological and genetic characteristics of dystrophinopathy in Korea [1618].

To evaluate genotype-phenotype correlations in dystrophinopathy, we investigated the genetic spectrum and changes in clinical and laboratory findings with disease progression in Korean patients with genetically confirmed dystrophinopathy.

Materials and methods

Study participants

The present study hospital is one of the largest myology centers in Korea, and our database contains information on 2,331 unrelated patients with myopathy. We reviewed medical records from January 2004 to September 2020 from the myopathy database and identified 227 patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy. This research protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Gangnam Severance Hospital, Korea (IRB No: 3-2020-0127). The need for written informed consent was waived by the board because this was a retrospective study.

Phenotype and laboratory assessment

We analyzed the clinical spectrum of patients with dystrophinopathy using their medical records, which included information on age at symptom onset, sex, family history, motor weakness, presence of scoliosis, loss of ambulation, respiratory discomfort, dilated cardiomyopathy, and use of mechanical ventilation. Five subgroups were defined, including DMD, BMD, intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD), undetermined phenotype (UD) (patients who were ambulatory on medical records, but had no records after the age of 12 years) and symptomatic carriers (females with muscle weakness of any severity). DMD, BMD, and intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD) were defined according to age at loss of ambulation (DMD <13 years, BMD ≥16 years, and 13 years ≤ IMD <16 years) in accordance with established diagnostic criteria [19]. Motor weakness in individual movements was assessed using manual muscle testing (MMT) scores (0, 1, 2, 3-, 3, 3+, 4-, 4, 4+, 5-, and 5). Next, MMT scores were converted to an 11-point scale from 0 to 10. A total MMT score was calculated as the sum of 10 strength values, which included the strength values of shoulder abduction, elbow extension, elbow flexion, wrist extension, wrist flexion, hip flexion, knee extension, knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, and ankle plantarflexion. The results of prior creatine kinase (CK), echocardiography studies, and muscle biopsies were extracted from the medical records in 227, 162, and 43 patients, respectively.

Genetic spectrum

Among the 218 unrelated probands, 178 with exonic deletions or duplications were diagnosed with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA). The remaining 40 with small sequence variants were genetically confirmed by targeted sequencing or whole-exome sequencing. All identified variants were classified into benign, likely benign, uncertain significance, pathogenic, or likely pathogenic variants, according to the guidelines of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics [20]. The numbering for the pathogenic variants of DMD was based on the cDNA sequence (accession: NM_004006.2). Next, we checked the reading frame rule in 151 probands with exonic deletion or duplication using the LOVD exonic deletions/duplications reading–frame checker (https://www.dmd.nl/). The reading frame rule was not evaluated in 27 unrelated probands with exonic deletion or duplication for the following reasons: (1) 16 probands had UD due to incomplete clinical data, (2) probands had exonic duplication affecting two regions, (3) 3 probands were symptomatic carriers, (4) 2 probands had exonic deletions including a translation initiation site, and (5) 2 probands had exonic deletions and duplications including the translation termination site.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics of the clinical spectrum of patients are presented as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and as means and standard deviations for continuous variables. To compare the degree of muscle weakness and serum levels of CK between groups over time, time effects, group effects, and their interactions were included in a linear mixed model. A first-order autoregressive covariance structure was considered such that the larger the interval between time points of repeatedly measured data, the less of a correlation there was. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). The significance level for the statistical analyses was set at P <0.05.

Results

Clinical spectrum

Table 1 and S1 Table summarize the clinical spectrum data of 227 Korean patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy. There were 223 males (98%) and 4 females (2%). Clinical phenotypes included 120 (53%) DMD, 20 (9%) IMD, 65 (29%) BMD, 18 (8%) UD, and 4 (2%) symptomatic carrier cases. A family history was positive in 70 (31%) patients. The median ages at symptom onset, diagnosis, and last examination were 5.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 3.8–8.0), 12.0 (IQR: 7.0–21.0), and 23.0 (IQR: 17.0–31.0) years, respectively. The median follow-up period was 9 (IQR:3.0–15.0) years. Muscle biopsies were performed in 43 (19%) of the 227 patients. Among them, analysis of nine samples indicated end-stage muscle disease. The remaining 34 muscle samples showed many degenerative/regenerative muscle fibers, infiltration of inflammatory cells, and increased endomysial fibrosis. Immunohistochemical analysis of the N-terminal, rod-domain, and C-terminal of dystrophin protein showed a total loss of expression in 20 patients with DMD, IMD, or UD and patchy and faint staining of sarcolemma in 14 patients with BMD.

Table 1. Clinical characteristics of 227 Korean patients with dystrophinopathy.

Total patients DMD IMD BMD UD Symptomatic carrier
Number of patients 227 120 (53%) 20 (9%) 65 (29%) 18 (8%) 4 (2%)
Age at the symptom onset, year 5.0 [3.8–8.0] 5.0 [3.0–6.0] 5.5 [4.0–7.8] 10.0 [6.0–15.5] 4.0 [3.0–6.3] 17.0 [5.8–29.0]
Age at the diagnosis, year 12.0 [7.0–21.0] 9.0 [7.0–15.8] 12.0 [8.0–22.3] 20.0 [13.0–28.5] 5.5 [3.8–7.0] 33.5 [12.3–36.0]
Age at the last follow-up, year 23.0 [17.0–31.0] 22.5 [17.0–28.0] 30.5 [24.3–35.5] 27.0 [19.0–37.5] 7.0 [5.8–8.3] 33.5 [12.3–42.8]
Family history 71 (31%) 37 (31%) 6 (30%) 25 (38%)
Males 223 (98%) 120 (100%) 20 (100%) 65 (100%) 18 (100%) 0 (0%)
MMT-sum score at the last follow-up 14.0 [22.0–61.0] 15.0 [12.3–22.0] 15.0 [12.5–19.5] 70.0 [39.5–90.0] 81.5 [64.0–100.0] 83.0 [37.8–90.0]
Scoliosis
    Scoliosis 146 (64%) 109 (91%) 19 (95%) 15 (23%) 3 (17%) 0 (0%)
    Scoliosis surgery 33 (15%) 31 (26%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
    Age at scoliosis surgery 14.0 [13.0–17.0] 14.0 [13.0–17.0] 12.0 and 18.0
Loss of ambulation 154 (68%) 120 (100%) 20 (100%) 13 (20%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
    Age at the loss of ambulation 11.0 [10.0–12.0] 10.0 [9.0–11.0] 13.5 [130–14.0] 19.0 [17.0–25.0]
Respiratory function
    Respiratory discomfort 121 (53%) 93 (78%) 17 (85%) 11 (17%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
    Number of patients with ventilator use 111 (49%) 87 (72%) 16 (80%) 8 (12%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
    Age at the start of mechanical ventilation 21.0 [18.0–25.0] 20.0 [17.0–22.0] 26.0 [23.0–28.0] 37.5 [30.3–44.8]
Cardiac evaluation n = 162 n = 105 n = 20 n = 36 n = 1 n = 1
    Number of patients with DCMP 77 (48%) 57 (54%) 8 (40%) 12 (33%) 0 (0%) 0(0%)
    Age at the diagnosis of DCMP 23.0 [18.0–28.0] 21.0 [17.5–26.0] 27.5 [20.8–28.0] 34.0 [26.5–38.0]
Death until the last follow-up 7 (3%) 6 (5%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Serum CK level at the last follow-up 1,034.0 [375.3–3,310.3] 646.5 [275.8–2,033.0] 411.0 [259.0–866.0] 1,865.0 [777.0–3,288.0] 14,898.0 [10,998–17,231] 2,165.0 [1,195.0–2165.0]

DMD, Duchenne muscular dystrophy; BMD, Becker muscular dystrophy; IMD, intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy; UD, undetermined phenotype; DCMP, dilated cardiomyopathy; CK, creatine kinase; MMT, manual muscle test: the Medical Research Council 5-point scale for strength was converted to an 11-point scale (0, 1, 2, 3-, 3, 3+, 4-, 4, 4+, 5-, and 5). The observed MMT scores ranged from 0 to 10 for each movement assessed. The MMT-sum score was the sum of 10 strength values, including those for shoulder abduction, elbow extension, elbow flexion, wrist extension, wrist flexion, hip flexion, knee extension, knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, and ankle plantarflexion.

Among all patients, 18 were classified as having UD phenotype. The results of muscle biopsy were extracted from medical records in only one patient (ID16). Therein, immunohistochemistry for the rod domain, C-terminus, and N-terminus of dystrophin protein showed a total loss of expression. All four symptomatic carriers complained of asymmetric motor weakness of the proximal leg muscles; however, they did not complain of cardiac, respiratory, or orthopedic complications. Therefore, we only compared the clinical characteristics of patients with DMD, IMD, and BMD. Total MMT scores decreased annually in patients with DMD, IMD, and BMD (Fig 1). Overall, when age increased by 1 year, total MMT scores decreased on average by -1.978, -1.681, and -1.303 in patients with DMD (p<0.001), IMD (p<0.001), and BMD (p<0.001), respectively. The slope difference between DMD and BMD was 0.675; this difference was significant (p<0.001). However, the slope was not significantly different between DMD and IMD (p = 0.217) or between IMD and BMD (p = 0.150). Median serum CK levels at the time of diagnosis and the last follow-up were 3,262 (IQR: 1,132–12,052) and 1,034 (IQR: 375–3,310), respectively. Average serum CK levels decreased at an annual rate in patients with DMD, IMD, and BMD (Fig 2). When age increased by 1 year, serum CK levels decreased on average by -633.497, -356.871, and -127.657 in patients with DMD (p<0.001), IMD (p<0.001), and BMD (p = 0.039), respectively. This annual decrease in serum CK levels was significantly steeper in patients with DMD than in patients with IMD (p = 0.003) and BMD (p<0.001). The median ages at the last examination were 22.5 [IQR: 17.0–28.0], 30.5 [IQR: 24.3–35.5], and 27.0 [IQR:19.0–37.5] years in 120 patients with DMD, 20 patients with IMD, and 65 patients with BMD, respectively. Scoliosis was significantly more frequent in patients with DMD (109 patients, 91%) and IMD (19 patients, 95%) than in patients with BMD (15 patients, 23%, p<0.001). Loss of ambulation was significantly more frequent in patients with DMD (118 patients, 98%) and IMD (21 patients, 100%) than in patients with BMD (14 patients, 21%, p<0.001). Mechanical ventilation use was also significantly more frequent in patients with DMD (86 patients, 71%) and IMD (17 patients, 81%) than in patients with BMD (8 patients, 12%, p<0.001).

Fig 1. Changes in manual muscle test sum scores with age: A spaghetti plot.

Fig 1

Individual changes in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD), and Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD). Blue, red, and green colors indicate patients with DMD, IMD, and BMD, respectively. *MMT, manual muscle test: the MMT for strength was converted to an 11-point scale (0, 1, 2, 3-, 3, 3+, 4-, 4, 4+, 5-, and 5). The observed MMT scores ranged from 0 to 10 for each movement assessed. The total MMT score represents the sum of 10 strength values, including those for shoulder abduction, elbow extension, elbow flexion, wrist extension, wrist flexion, hip flexion, knee extension, knee flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, and ankle plantarflexion.

Fig 2. Changes in mean serum creatine kinase (CK) levels with age.

Fig 2

Blue, red, and green colors indicate patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD), and Becker muscular dystrophy, respectively. The average annual decrease in serum creatine kinase level was significantly steeper in patients with DMD than in patients with IMD (p = 0.003) and BMD (p<0.001). (A) Change in mean serum CK level with age for ages 0–12 and (B) change in mean serum CK level with age for ages 12 and above.

Genetic spectrum

Exonic deletions and duplications were recorded in 147 (67%) and 31 (14%) of the 218 unrelated probands, respectively. The most common genotype was a deletion of exons 45–47 in 17 (8%) probands, followed by deletion of exons 45–48 in 7 (3%) probands and deletion of exon 51 in 7 (3%) probands (Table 2). The frequencies of exonic deletions (93, 69%) in 134 probands with DMD or IMD were similar to those of exonic deletion (41, 65%) in 63 probands with BMD. However, the frequency of small sequence variants (19, 14%) in 134 probands with DMD or IMD was lower than that (14, 22%) in 63 probands with BMD. Exonic deletions starting in the proximal hot spot (exons 2–20) and the distal hot spot (exons 45–55) accounted for 22 (14%) and 104 (72%) of the 147 regions, respectively (Fig 3A). Exonic deletions affecting both regions were not found. Exonic duplications affecting the two regions were found in four probands with DMD. Four patients with DMD (ID 139, ID 153, ID187, and ID 201) had duplications of exons 2–7 and 45–51, duplications of exons 5–37 and 50–59, duplications of exons 52–53 and 56–61, and duplications of exons 52–53 and 56–61, respectively (S1 Table). Therefore, we found 35 regions of exonic duplications in 31 probands. Exonic duplication starting in the distal hot spot (exons 45–55) and the proximal hot spot (exons 2–20) accounted for 22 (63%) and 7 (20%) of the five regions, respectively (Fig 3B). A total of 37 different small sequence variants were found in 40 (18%) of the 218 unrelated probands. There were 16 different nonsense variants in 18 (8.3%) unrelated probands, 10 splicing-site variants in 11 (5.0%), nine frameshift variants in 9 (4.1%), one deep-intronic variant in 1 (0.5%), and one missense variant in 1 (0.5%) (Fig 4). Among the sequence variants, four variants were novel (namely, c.491delCinsTT, c.3374C>A, c.4171A>T, and c.8219_8228delACCTCCAAGG).

Table 2. Relationship between common exonic deletion/duplication and clinical phenotypes in Korean patients with dystrophinopathy.

Exonic deletion/duplication Total DMD IMD BMD UD Symptomatic carrier Reading-frame
Deletion of exons 45–47 17 0 0 14 3 0 In-frame
Deletion of exons 45–48 7 0 0 7 0 0 In-frame
Deletion of exon 51 7 6 1 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 3–7 6 2 0 3 1 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exon 45 6 5 1 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 49–50 6 3 1 0 2 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 45–49 6 0 0 6 0 0 In-frame
Deletion of exons 45–50 5 4 0 0 1 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 46–47 5 5 0 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 46–48 5 4 0 0 0 1 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exon 44 4 3 0 0 1 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 45–52 4 3 1 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 45–55 4 0 0 13 1 0 In-frame
Deletion of exons 48–52 4 3 0 0 0 1 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 45–54 3 1 0 1 1 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 46–52 3 2 1 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exon 50 3 3 0 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Deletion of exons 50–52 3 3 0 0 0 0 Out-of-frame
Duplication of exon 2 3 3 2 0 1 0 Out-of-frame

DMD, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, BMD, Becker muscular dystrophy, IMD, intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy, UD, undetermined phenotype.

Fig 3. Distribution of large rearrangements in 178 probands with dystrophinopathy.

Fig 3

Red (A) and blue (B) colors indicate exonic deletions and exonic duplications, respectively.

Fig 4. Small sequence variants in DMD in 40 probands with dystrophinopathy.

Fig 4

Red, blue, pink, light blue, and green colors indicate splicing, frameshift, non-sense, deep intron, and missense variants, respectively. Bold text indicates novel variants. Dots indicate the frequency of each variant.

Exonic deletions rescuable through mono-exon skipping

The most common exon skips applicable to the largest number of patients were skipping of exon 51 in 18 (13%) of 134 probands with exonic deletion, followed by skipping of exon 45 in 16 (12%), exon 53 in 13 (10%), exon 44 in 13 (10%), exon 43 in 7 (5%), exon 50 in 7 (5%), and exon 53 in 7 (5%) probands.

Genotype-phenotype correlations

We evaluated the reading frame rule in 151 probands with exonic deletions or duplications. Among the 151 probands, 106 (70%) had out-of-frame variants, whereas 45 (30%) had in-frame variants. The reading frame rule was applied to 142 (94%) probands. Among them, 102 (96%) of 106 probands with out-of-frame variants had a severe phenotype (DMD or IMD), and 40 (89%) of the 45 probands with in-frame variants had a mild phenotype (BMD). Nine unrelated probands did not follow the reading frame rule. Among the four probands with BMD and an out-of-frame deletion, three patients had a deletion of exons 3–7 and one had a deletion of exons 45–54. Four patients with DMD had in-frame deletion of exons 10–44, 49–51, and 56–67 and in-frame duplication of exons 30–49. One patient with IMD had in-frame duplication of exons 3–18. Further, out-of-frame deletion of exons 3–7 was found in two patients with DMD and three patients with BMD (Table 2). Among the sequence variants, nonsense variants were frequently found in 13 (10%) of 134 probands with DMD or IMD, compared with 4 (7%) of 63 probands with BMD. However, splicing variants were frequently found in 6 (10%) of 63 probands with BMD, compared with 6 (4%) of 134 probands with DMD or IMD.

Discussion

The present study outlines the clinical and genetic spectra of 227 Korean patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy. All patients were genetically diagnosed with dystrophinopathy through MLPA or next-generation sequencing.

The clinical presentation of our patients included progressive skeletal muscle weakness, elevated serum CK levels, scoliosis, dilated cardiomyopathy, and respiratory discomfort. Most patients with DMD were non-ambulatory at the age of 10, used a mechanical ventilator at the age of 20, and were diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy at the age of 21 years. Total MMT scores and serum CK levels decreased more rapidly with age in patients with DMD than those with IMD or BMD. These findings were compatible with those in previous reports [3, 21, 22].

Our study showed that the proportions of large deletions, large duplications, and small sequence variants were 67%, 14%, and 18%, respectively. This is consistent with previous research [6, 18, 23, 24]. Our study showed that there were exonic deletions and exonic duplications mainly in the distal and proximal hot spots, respectively. The small sequence variants were evenly distributed throughout the entire gene. These results are also compatible with previous results [18, 19, 23, 25]. Further, we found that skipping of exons 51, 45, and 53 could be beneficial to Korean patients with dystrophinopathy. These results indicate that currently developed exon skipping therapies (eteplirsen, golodirsen, viltolarsen, and casimersen) can help many Korean patients with DMD [12, 13].

Regarding the relationship between genotype and phenotype, the reading frame rule showed 94% agreement with the DMD global database [6]. The most inconsistent variant of the reading frame rule was the deletion of exons 3–7, which is an out-of-frame variant; however, it was found in only two patients with DMD and three patients with BMD. The relationship between this variant and BMD is well known [26]. However, the mechanisms of other inconsistent large rearrangements of the reading frame rule are not clear.

This study has several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study based on medical records. Therefore, we could not include various clinical scales, such as a 6-min walk and the North Star Ambulatory Assessment. We could only analyze limited clinical scales, such as MMT scores. Second, our study was not a multicenter cohort study. Third, this study only included Korean patients. Fourth, we could not analyze the effects of steroids on patients with dystrophinopathy in this study. The use of steroids prolongs the ambulatory phase of dystrophinopathy. Therefore, the lack of steroid information may result in errors in distinguishing DMD from IMD and BMD. However, we could not confirm the exact drug history, including steroids, because that most of patients had also been treated at other hospitals. We could only estimate that about two-thirds of patients had been treated with steroids according to the experience of other myology centers in Korea [18].

The present results highlight the long-term natural history and the genetic spectrum of a large-scale Korean cohort of patients with dystrophinopathy. We demonstrated that the phenotype-genotype relationship and skipping of exons 51, 45, and 53 could be utilized for the management of Korean patients with dystrophinopathy. Our results provide insights for developing therapeutic drugs and designing clinical trials in Korean patients with dystrophinopathy.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Clinical features of 227 patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the patients and their families for their help with this work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by a new faculty research seed money grant of Yonsei University College of Medicine for 2020 (3-2020-0127). The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [S.A.L., W.A.C., S.W.K., G.P, S.L. Y.C.C. and H.J.P], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.Hoffman EP, Brown RH Jr, Kunkel LM. Dystrophin: the protein product of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy locus. Cell 1987;51(6):919–28. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(87)90579-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kunkel L, Beggs A, Hoffman E. Molecular genetics of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy: emphasis on improved diagnosis. Clin Chemi 1989;35(7 Suppl):B21–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Muntoni F, Torelli S, Ferlini A. Dystrophin and mutations: one gene, several proteins, multiple phenotypes. Lancet Neurol 2003;2(12):731–40. doi: 10.1016/s1474-4422(03)00585-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Monaco AP, Neve RL, Colletti-Feener C, Bertelson CJ, Kurnit DM, Kunkel LM. Isolation of candidate cDNAs for portions of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene. Nature 1986;323(6089):646–50. doi: 10.1038/323646a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Koenig M, Hoffman E, Bertelson C, Monaco A, Feener C, Kunkel L. Complete cloning of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) cDNA and preliminary genomic organization of the DMD gene in normal and affected individuals. Cell 1987;50(3):509–17. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(87)90504-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bladen CL, Salgado D, Monges S, Foncuberta ME, Kekou K, Kosma K, et al. The TREAT‐NMD DMD Global Database: analysis of more than 7,000 Duchenne muscular dystrophy mutations. Hum Mutat 2015;36(4):395–402. doi: 10.1002/humu.22758 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mah JK, Korngut L, Dykeman J, Day L, Pringsheim T, Jette N. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the epidemiology of Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy. Neuromuscul Disord 2014;24(6):482–91. doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2014.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Cohn RD, Campbell KP. Molecular basis of muscular dystrophies. Muscle Nerve 2000;23(10):1456–71. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zubrzycka-Gaarn EE, Bulman DE, Karpati G, Burghes AH, Belfall B, Klamut HJ, et al. The Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene product is localized in sarcolemma of human skeletal muscle. Nature 1988;333(6172):466–9. doi: 10.1038/333466a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ishikawa Y, Miura T, Ishikawa Y, Aoyagi T, Ogata H, Hamada S, et al. Duchenne muscular dystrophy: survival by cardio-respiratory interventions. Neuromuscul Disord 2011;21(1):47–51. doi: 10.1016/j.nmd.2010.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sejerson T, Bushby K. Standards of care for Duchenne muscular dystrophy: brief TREAT-NMD recommendations. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009;652:13–21. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2813-6_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mendell JR, Rodino‐Klapac LR, Sahenk Z, Roush K, Bird L, Lowes LP, et al. Eteplirsen for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Ann Neurol 2013;74(5):637–47. doi: 10.1002/ana.23982 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Frank DE, Schnell FJ, Akana C, El-Husayni SH, Desjardins CA, Morgan J, et al. Increased dystrophin production with golodirsen in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Neurology 2020;94(21):e2270–e82. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000009233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Clemens PR, Rao VK, Connolly AM, Harper AD, Mah JK, Smith EC, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of viltolarsen in boys with duchenne muscular dystrophy amenable to exon 53 skipping: a phase 2 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Neurol 2020;77(8):982–91. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.1264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wagner KR, Kuntz NL, Koenig E, East L, Upadhyay S, Han B, et al. Safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of casimersen in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy amenable to exon 45 skipping: A randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, dose‐titration trial. Muscle Nerve 2021. doi: 10.1002/mus.27347 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Na S-J, Kim W-J, Kim SM, Lee KO, Yoon B, Choi Y-C. Clinical, immunohistochemical, Western blot, and genetic analysis in dystrophinopathy. J Clin Neurosci 2013;20(8):1099–105. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.09.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lee SH, Lee JH, Lee K-A, Choi Y-C. Clinical and genetic characterization of female dystrophinopathy. J Clin Neurol 2015;11(3):248–51. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2015.11.3.248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cho A, Seong MW, Lim BC, Lee HJ, Byeon JH, Kim SS, et al. Consecutive analysis of mutation spectrum in the dystrophin gene of 507 Korean boys with Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy in a single center. Muscle Nerve 2017;55(5):727–34. doi: 10.1002/mus.25396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Tuffery‐Giraud S, Béroud C, Leturcq F, Yaou RB, Hamroun D, Michel‐Calemard L, et al. Genotype–phenotype analysis in 2,405 patients with a dystrophinopathy using the UMD–DMD database: a model of nationwide knowledgebase. Hum Mutat 2009;30(6):934–45. doi: 10.1002/humu.20976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, 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):405–23. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bushby K, Finkel R, Birnkrant DJ, Case LE, Clemens PR, Cripe L, et al. Diagnosis and management of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, part 1: diagnosis, and pharmacological and psychosocial management. Lancet Neurol 2010;9(1):77–93. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70271-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bushby K. Genetic and clinical correlations of Xp21 muscular dystrophy. Journal of inherited metabolic disease. 1992;15(4):551–64. doi: 10.1007/BF01799614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Juan-Mateu J, Gonzalez-Quereda L, Rodriguez MJ, Baena M, Verdura E, Nascimento A, et al. DMD mutations in 576 dystrophinopathy families: a step forward in genotype-phenotype correlations. PloS one 2015;10(8):e0135189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135189 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Den Dunnen J, Grootscholten P, Bakker E, Blonden L, Ginjaar H, Wapenaar M, et al. Topography of the Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) gene: FIGE and cDNA analysis of 194 cases reveals 115 deletions and 13 duplications. Am J Hum Genet 1989;45(6):835–47. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Vengalil S, Preethish-Kumar V, Polavarapu K, Mahadevappa M, Sekar D, Purushottam M, et al. Duchenne muscular dystrophy and Becker muscular dystrophy confirmed by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification: genotype-phenotype correlation in a large cohort. J Clin Neurol 2017;13(1):91–7. doi: 10.3988/jcn.2017.13.1.91 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Winnard AV, Mendell JR, Prior TW, Florence J, Burghes A. Frameshift deletions of exons 3–7 and revertant fibers in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: mechanisms of dystrophin production. Am J Human Genet 1995;56(1):158–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Michael Kyba

11 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-16348

Clinical and genetic spectra in patients with dystrophinopathy in Korea: A single-center study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Park,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers ask for a number of additional pieces of information as well as some editorial changes.  Please address these, either by making changes, or by providing an explanation.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 26 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Michael Kyba

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"NO authors have competing interests"

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: 3bilion, Inc..

2.1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2.2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a solid, well-written manuscript describing the clinical and genetic characteristics of a large single center cohort of dystrophinopathy patients from Korea. This information will be valuable if the authorities in Korea are considering regulatory and access issues for the new molecular therapies for this disease. I have the following recommendations to improve the manuscript.

1. I recommend alternate references to replace #1 and #2. The authors are correct in citing Louis Kunkel, as his laboratory was responsible for the initial cloning of DMD and discovering the protein dystrophin, but the seminal articles are: (1) Monaco AP et al, Nature 1986;323:646-650 (initial cloning of DMD); (2) Koenig M et al, Cell 1987;50:509-517 (cloning of entire DMD gene); and Hoffman EP et al, Cell 1987;51:919-928 (initial discovery of the protein dystrophin). Some or all of these articles should be cited instead.

2. Regarding the life expectancy into the 30s and 40s for DMD, that is correct but only in the context of good supportive care. Without such care, the life expectancy is much shorter and thus this caveat should be noted.

3. The Introduction notes 2 antisense oligonucleotide drugs but the Discussion mentions 4. There are 4 such compounds approved in the US to date so the Introduction should be corrected.

4. I am a little confused about the composition of the UD cohort. The Methods section suggests that they are presymptomatic patients, and in the Results it suggests that the UD cohort has incomplete medical records. One or both of these passages should be clarified for consistency.

5. It is best to avoid the term "wheelchair-bound", it is better to say "non-ambulatory" instead.

6. In the methods, it is best not to say "We also assessed the serum creatine kinase..." and "Echocardiography was performed..." as the wording suggests that these data were collected prospectively. As this is a retrospective study, it is better to say that results of prior CK and echocardiography studies were extracted from the medical records.

7. In the Genetic spectrum section, the first sentence should end with ", respectively."

8. The description of the 4 exonic duplications affecting two regions. I assume these are large duplications rather than two duplications for each patient but this should be clarified, perhaps even by indicating the start and end exons for the duplications.

9. The genotype-phenotype correlation data is in line with the findings of other studies so I believe this information is largely correct. However, given that steroids prolong the ambulatory phase of the disease, the lack of steroid information potentially introduces errors as a patient who would ordinarily be classified as DMD may walk a bit past the age of 16 with steroid therapy. If possible, it would help to obtain steroid information. If this is not possible, at the very least this limitation should be expanded in the Discussion and also information should be provided on how widespread steroid use is in the DMD population in Korea.

10. In Figure 2, it is difficult to interpret the exact CK levels at the later age ranges. It might be more informative to show two separate graphs, one for ages 0-12 or so and the other for ages 12 and above. Thus the second graph would be capped at 10,000 and it will be more clear what the later numbers are.

11. Figure 3 would be more informative if bars or lines were shown indicating the actual rearranged DNA segments.

Reviewer #2: The Authors report on 227 Korean patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy; they describe retrospectively the clinical course of the disease. In all the patients they performed manual muscle testing (MMT) scores and CK dosage, only some patients underwent Echocardiography and muscle biopsy.

In all the patients was identified a pathogenic mutation in the dystrophin gene.

Clinical findings are compatible with those of previous reports; the Authors include an additional phenotype named undetermined phenotype (UD) for the patients who were not wheelchair-bound and too young to be defined as DMD or BMD. Regarding this group, in the supplementary table 1 18 patients are reported as “clinical phenotype pending”. Is the UD phenotype?

I think the group UD is confounding, if the muscle biopsy has been performed I would suggest to define the phenotype as BMD or DMD based on the immunohystochemical analysis ; if not performed I would classify these patients referring to the phenotype expected based on the genotype. All the 18 mutations are reported in the LOVD pages and only the phenotype associated to the duplication of exon 14-45 it could be difficult to predict ( transcript analysis is necessary)

A part form this group, it would be interesting to add some information on the muscle biopsy performed in 43 patients and to correlate it with the genotype.

Regarding the genetic data the frequencies of exonic deletions/duplications and small mutations are similar to the ones previously reported in other countries. Do the Authors have cases of DMD confirmed at the biopsy ( absence of dystrophin) and negative to molecular analysis?

This paper has some limitations as described by the Authors but it is important because is the first report on dystrophinopathies in Korean patients and give data for developing therapeutic drugs and designing clinical trials.

I have few comments :

Lane 37 “dystrophinopathies is a genetic muscle disease” Is not correct, is a group of inherited phenotypes all due to dystrophin mutations.

ABSTRACT and Lane 58 instead of “sequence variants” I’d rather say “mutations”

Lane 62 1% of deep intronic mutations is missing

Lane 65 is the most common type of muscular dystrophy I would add “IN CHILDREN”

Lane 105 “undetermined phenotype (UD) (for the patients who were not wheelchair-bound and too young to be defined as DMD or BMD) “ it is not specificed the age considered as cut off

Lane 219 “Nine unrelated probands did not follow the reading frame rule” A part from the patients with the del 3-7 for which the explanation is known, in the other patients it would be worth to study the transcript if the RNA from muscle biopsy is available.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Peter B. Kang

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 23;16(7):e0255011. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255011.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Jun 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your letter regarding our manuscript “Clinical and genetic spectra in patients with dystrophinopathy in Korea: A single-center study” and the Reviewers’ comments.

We have made the necessary corrections in accordance with the suggestions of the reviewers, and provided replies to the reviewers on how we have responded to their points in the manuscript. The changes made have been highlighted in yellow.

We believe that the comments have improved the quality of our manuscript, and we hope you will find our revised manuscript acceptable for publication.

Sincerely yours,

Hyung Jun Park

Hyung Jun Park, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Neurology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, 211 Eonju-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06273, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2019-3329, Fax: +82-2-3462-5904, E-mail: hjpark316@yuhs.ac

[Editor]

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have changed the corresponding sentences and words according to the PLOS ONE style templates.

Comment 2: Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"NO authors have competing interests" We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: 3bilion, Inc..

Response 2: Thank you for important comment. The COI section has been changed as follows:

Lines 290-294: Competing interests

Go Hun Seo is employed by the company 3billion. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Comment 3: Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form. Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

Response 3: Thank you for your important comment. Even though Go Hun Seo is employed at the company, the company did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. We have also added the author contributions as follows.

Lines 284-288: The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [S.A.L., W.A.C., S.W.K., G.P, S.L. Y.C.C. and H.J.P], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Lines 300-303: Author contributions

Concept and study design: Y.C.C. and H.J.P. Data acquisition and analysis: U.K.Y., S.A.L., W.A.C., S.W.K., G.H.S., J.H.L., G.P., S.L., and H.J.P. Drafting the manuscript and figures: U.K.Y., S.A.L., G.P., S.L., and H.J.P. Revision: S.A.L. and H.J.P.

Comment 4: Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We have added an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in the cover letter.

Comment 5: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have changed the corresponding sentences and words according to the Supporting Information guidelines.

[Reviewer 1]

Reviewer #1: This is a solid, well-written manuscript describing the clinical and genetic characteristics of a large single center cohort of dystrophinopathy patients from Korea. This information will be valuable if the authorities in Korea are considering regulatory and access issues for the new molecular therapies for this disease. I have the following recommendations to improve the manuscript.

Comment 1: I recommend alternate references to replace #1 and #2. The authors are correct in citing Louis Kunkel, as his laboratory was responsible for the initial cloning of DMD and discovering the protein dystrophin, but the seminal articles are: (1) Monaco AP et al, Nature 1986;323:646-650 (initial cloning of DMD); (2) Koenig M et al, Cell 1987;50:509-517 (cloning of entire DMD gene); and Hoffman EP et al, Cell 1987;51:919-928 (initial discovery of the protein dystrophin). Some or all of these articles should be cited instead.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We have added all corresponding references.

Comment 2: Regarding the life expectancy into the 30s and 40s for DMD, that is correct but only in the context of good supportive care. Without such care, the life expectancy is much shorter and thus this caveat should be noted.

Response 2: Thank you for your important comment. We have changed the corresponding sentence as follows:

Lines 70-73: However, multidisciplinary care planning, including corticosteroids, cardiac medications, orthopedic surgery, rehabilitation, and assisted ventilation, has been found to improve quality of life and clinical outcomes, delaying death in patients with DMD into their 30s or 40s [10, 11].

Comment 3: The Introduction notes 2 antisense oligonucleotide drugs but the Discussion mentions 4. There are 4 such compounds approved in the US to date so the Introduction should be corrected.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. The corresponding sentence has been changed as follows:

Lines 74-78: Recently, various therapies based on molecular mechanisms, including gene therapy, cell therapy, read-through drugs, and antisense oligonucleotides for exon-skipping, have been studied and subjected to clinical trials: of these, four antisense oligonucleotide drugs (eteplirsen, golodirsen, viltolarsen, and casimersen) have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use in treating dystrophinopathy [12-15].

Comment 4: I am a little confused about the composition of the UD cohort. The Methods section suggests that they are presymptomatic patients, and in the Results it suggests that the UD cohort has incomplete medical records. One or both of these passages should be clarified for consistency.

Response 4: Thank you for your proper comment. The corresponding phrase in the Methods has been changed as follows:

Lines 99-105: Five subgroups were defined, including DMD, BMD, intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD), undetermined phenotype (UD) (patients who were ambulatory on medical records, but had no records after the age of 12 years) and symptomatic carriers (females with muscle weakness of any severity). DMD, BMD, and intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD) were defined according to age at loss of ambulation (DMD <13 years, BMD ≥16 years, and 13 years ≤ IMD <16 years) in accordance with established diagnostic criteria [19].

Comment 5: It is best to avoid the term "wheelchair-bound", it is better to say "non-ambulatory" instead.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. The corresponding wording has been changed as follows:

Lines 96-99: We analyzed the clinical spectrum of patients with dystrophinopathy using their medical records, which included information on age at symptom onset, sex, family history, motor weakness, presence of scoliosis, loss of ambulation, respiratory discomfort, dilated cardiomyopathy, and use of mechanical ventilation.

Lines 99-105: Five subgroups were defined, including DMD, BMD, intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD), undetermined phenotype (UD) (patients who were ambulatory on medical records, but had no records after the age of 12 years) and symptomatic carriers (females with muscle weakness of any severity). DMD, BMD, and intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD) were defined according to age at loss of ambulation (DMD <13 years, BMD ≥16 years, and 13 years ≤ IMD <16 years) in accordance with established diagnostic criteria [19].

Lines 178-180: Loss of ambulation was significantly more frequent in patients with DMD (118 patients, 98%) and IMD (21 patients, 100%) than in patients with BMD (14 patients, 21%, p<0.001).

Lines 237-238: Most patients with DMD were non-ambulatory at the age of 10, used a mechanical ventilator at the age of 20, and were diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy at the age of 21.

Comment 6: In the methods, it is best not to say "We also assessed the serum creatine kinase..." and "Echocardiography was performed..." as the wording suggests that these data were collected prospectively. As this is a retrospective study, it is better to say that results of prior CK and echocardiography studies were extracted from the medical records.

Response 6: Thank you for proper comment. The corresponding word has been changed as follows:

Lines 110-112: The results of prior creatine kinase (CK), echocardiography studies, and muscle biopsies were extracted from the medical records in 227, 162, and 43 patients, respectively.

Comment 7: In the Genetic spectrum section, the first sentence should end with ", respectively."

Response 7: Thank you for proper comment. The corresponding sentence has been changed as follows:

Lines 185-186: Exonic deletions and duplications were recorded in 147 (67%) and 31 (14%) of the 218 unrelated probands, respectively.

Comment 8: The description of the 4 exonic duplications affecting two regions. I assume these are large duplications rather than two duplications for each patient but this should be clarified, perhaps even by indicating the start and end exons for the duplications.

Response 8: Thank you for comment. We have added the following sentences:

Lines 194-198: Exonic duplications affecting the two regions were found in four probands with DMD. Four patients with DMD (ID 139, ID 153, ID187, and ID 201) had duplications of exons 2 - 7 and 45 – 51, duplications of exons 5 - 37 and 50 – 59, duplications of exons 52 - 53 and 56 – 61, and duplications of exons 52-53 and 56-61, respectively (S1 table).

Comment 9: The genotype-phenotype correlation data is in line with the findings of other studies so I believe this information is largely correct. However, given that steroids prolong the ambulatory phase of the disease, the lack of steroid information potentially introduces errors as a patient who would ordinarily be classified as DMD may walk a bit past the age of 16 with steroid therapy. If possible, it would help to obtain steroid information. If this is not possible, at the very least this limitation should be expanded in the Discussion and also information should be provided on how widespread steroid use is in the DMD population in Korea.

Response 9: Thank you for very important comment. We agree with your opinion.

The corresponding sentence has been changed as follows:

Lines 262-267: The use of steroids prolongs the ambulatory phase of dystrophinopathy. Therefore, the lack of steroid information may result in errors in distinguishing DMD from IMD and BMD. However, we could not confirm the exact drug history including steroids because that most of patients had also been treated at other hospitals. We could only estimate that about two-thirds of patients had been treated with steroids according to the experience of other myology center in Korea [18].

Comment 10: In Figure 2, it is difficult to interpret the exact CK levels at the later age ranges. It might be more informative to show two separate graphs, one for ages 0-12 or so and the other for ages 12 and above. Thus the second graph would be capped at 10,000 and it will be more clear what the later numbers are.

Response 10: Thank you for proper comment. Following your advice, we have corrected Figure 2.

Comment 11: Figure 3 would be more informative if bars or lines were shown indicating the actual rearranged DNA segments.

Response 11: Thank you for proper comment. We have corrected Figure 3.

[Reviewer 2]

The Authors report on 227 Korean patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy; they describe retrospectively the clinical course of the disease. In all the patients they performed manual muscle testing (MMT) scores and CK dosage, only some patients underwent Echocardiography and muscle biopsy.

In all the patients was identified a pathogenic mutation in the dystrophin gene.

Comment 1: Clinical findings are compatible with those of previous reports; the Authors include an additional phenotype named undetermined phenotype (UD) for the patients who were not wheelchair-bound and too young to be defined as DMD or BMD. Regarding this group, in the supplementary table 1 18 patients are reported as “clinical phenotype pending”. Is the UD phenotype?

Response 1: Thank you for proper comment. “Clinical phenotype pending” means the UD phenotype. We have corrected the corresponding words in the S1 table.

Comment 2: I think the group UD is confounding, if the muscle biopsy has been performed I would suggest to define the phenotype as BMD or DMD based on the immunohistochemical analysis; if not performed I would classify these patients referring to the phenotype expected based on the genotype. All the 18 mutations are reported in the LOVD pages and only the phenotype associated to the duplication of exon 14-45 it could be difficult to predict (transcript analysis is necessary). A part form this group, it would be interesting to add some information on the muscle biopsy performed in 43 patients and to correlate it with the genotype.

Response 2: Thank you for very important comment. We agree with your opinion. However, classifying subtypes based on multiple criteria may obscure the meaning of the subtypes, so we grouped them based on the age at loss of ambulation. Among 18 patients with UD phenotype, the results of muscle biopsy were extracted from the medical records in only one patient (ID16). Immunohistochemistry for the rod domain, C-terminus, and N-terminus of dystrophin protein showed a total loss of expression. The following sentences were added:

Lines 156-159: Among all patients, 18 were classified as having UD phenotype. The results of muscle biopsy were extracted from medical records in only one patient (ID16). Therein, immunohistochemistry for the rod domain, C-terminus, and N-terminus of dystrophin protein showed a total loss of expression.

Comment 3: Regarding the genetic data the frequencies of exonic deletions/duplications and small mutations are similar to the ones previously reported in other countries. Do the Authors have cases of DMD confirmed at the biopsy (absence of dystrophin) and negative to molecular analysis?

Response 3: Thank you for critical comment. Of course, we have cases of dystrophinopathy confirmed at biopsy and negative to molecular analysis. However, our study is a retrospective observational study. Therefore, patients were not subjected to uniform genetic analysis, but to various testing, including PCR, MLPA, targeted sequencing, and whole exome sequencing. Actually, we excluded pathologically confirmed patients who were negative to MLPA but were not tested by next generation sequencing.

This paper has some limitations as described by the Authors but it is important because is the first report on dystrophinopathies in Korean patients and give data for developing therapeutic drugs and designing clinical trials.

I have few comments :

Comment 4: Lane 37 “dystrophinopathies is a genetic muscle disease” Is not correct, is a group of inherited phenotypes all due to dystrophin mutations.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. The corresponding sentence was changed as follows.

Line 36: Dystrophinopathy is a group of inherited phenotypes arising from pathogenic variants in DMD.

Line 55: Dystrophinopathy is a group of inherited phenotypes arising from pathogenic variants in DMD.

Comment 5: ABSTRACT and Lane 58 instead of “sequence variants” I’d rather say “mutations”

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. However, the terms “mutation” often lead to confusion because of incorrect assumptions of pathogenic and benign effects. Therefore, ACMG guidelines recommend that mutation is replaced by variant. We referred to small sequence variants, including single nucleotide variants and indels.

Comment 6: Lane 62 1% of deep intronic mutations is missing

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. However, we used small sequence variants, including indels and single nucleotide variants (nonsense, splicing, frameshift, missense, and deep intronic variants)

Comment 7: Lane 65 is the most common type of muscular dystrophy I would add “IN CHILDREN”

Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We added “in children.”

Line 62: Dystrophinopathy is the most common type of muscular dystrophy in children.

Comment 8: Lane 105 “undetermined phenotype (UD) (for the patients who were not wheelchair-bound and too young to be defined as DMD or BMD) “ it is not specificed the age considered as cut off

Response 8: Thank you for proper comment. The corresponding phrase was changed as follows.

Lines 99-102: Five subgroups were defined, including DMD, BMD, intermediate phenotype muscular dystrophy (IMD), undetermined phenotype (UD) (patients who were ambulatory on medical records, but had no records after the age of 12 years) and symptomatic carriers (females with muscle weakness of any severity).

Comment 9: Lane 219 “Nine unrelated probands did not follow the reading frame rule” A part from the patients with the del 3-7 for which the explanation is known, in the other patients it would be worth to study the transcript if the RNA from muscle biopsy is available.

Response 9: Thank you for very important comment. However, our study is a retrospective observational study. We will perform transcript analysis in future study.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer_comments_21_06_28.docx

Decision Letter 1

Michael Kyba

8 Jul 2021

Clinical and genetic spectra in patients with dystrophinopathy in Korea: A single-center study

PONE-D-21-16348R1

Dear Dr. Park,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Michael Kyba

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank your for addressing the reviewers' comments. Paper is good to go.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded constructively to the prior comments. The manuscript has been improved significantly. No further concerns.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Michael Kyba

15 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-16348R1

Clinical and genetic spectra in patients with dystrophinopathy in Korea: A single-center study

Dear Dr. Park:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Michael Kyba

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Clinical features of 227 patients from 218 unrelated families with dystrophinopathy.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer_comments_21_06_28.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES