Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Jul 14;17(7):e0270373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270373

Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders

Tejashwini Vittal Kumar 1, Meenakshi Bhat 2,3, Sanjeeva Ghanti Narayanachar 3, Vinu Narayan 2, Ambika K Srikanth 1, Swathi Anikar 1, Swathi Shetty 1,*
Editor: Elsayed Abdelkreem4
PMCID: PMC9282608  PMID: 35834487

Abstract

Glycogen storage disorders occur due to enzyme deficiencies in the glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis pathway, encoded by 26 genes. GSD’s present with overlapping phenotypes with variable severity. In this series, 57 individuals were molecularly confirmed for 7 GSD subtypes and their demographic data, clinical profiles and genotype-phenotype co-relations are studied. Genomic DNA from venous blood samples was isolated from clinically affected individuals. Targeted gene panel sequencing covering 23 genes and Sanger sequencing were employed. Various bioinformatic tools were used to predict pathogenicity for new variations. Close parental consanguinity was seen in 76%. Forty-nine pathogenic variations were detected of which 27 were novel. Variations were spread across GSDIa, Ib, III, VI, IXa, b and c. The largest subgroup was GSDIII in 28 individuals with 24 variations (12 novel) in AGL. The 1620+1G>C intronic variation was observed in 5 with GSDVI (PYGL). A total of eleven GSDIX are described with the first Indian report of type IXb. This is the largest study of GSDs from India. High levels of consanguinity in the local population and employment of targeted sequencing panels accounted for the range of GSDs reported here.

Introduction

Glycogen Storage Disorders (GSDs) are caused by deficiencies in the enzymes involved in the glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis pathway. The incidence of GSDs is 1 in 20,000–43,000 live births [1]. Based on the protein that is affected, GSDs are classified into 13 different types involving 26 genes [2]. This study describes 57 individuals of Indian origin with GSD type I, III, VI, IXa, IXb and IXc. GSDI is further divided into Ia, Ib, Ic and Id with GSDIa accounting for about 80% of all GSDI cases and resulting from pathogenic variants in the G6PC1 gene [3]. The remaining 20% includes Ib, Ic and Id, all of which harbour pathogenic variations in the SLC37A4 gene [3, 4].

GSDIa (OMIM 232200) is caused by deficiency of G6Pase-α which inhibits conversion of G6P to free glucose and phosphate [4]. This enzyme is expressed in the liver, kidney, and intestinal mucosal cells. GSDIa manifests early in infancy with severe hypoglycemia, hyperlipidemia, hepatomegaly, elevated lactate, uric acid levels and most affected children develop a cherubic face [3].

GSDIb (OMIM 232220) is caused due to deficiencies in transport of glucose-6-phosphate (G6P) from the cytosol into the microsomal lumen by glucose-6-phosphate translocase (G6PT) encoded by the G6PT/SLC37A4 gene [5, 6]. Clinical features of GSDIb are identical to GSDIa and include neutropenia and recurrent infections [5].

GSDIII (OMIM 232400) results from the defective functioning, or the absence of the glycogen debranching enzyme (GDE) encoded by the AGL gene whose deficiency causes storage of an intermediate form of glycogen called Limit Dextrin (LD) [7, 8]. GSDIII has an overall incidence of 1 in 100,000 [9, 10] but in some ethnic groups like the Faroe Island population and in Tunisians, the prevalence is as high as 1 in 3,600 and has been attributed to a founder mutation [11]. Similarly, Italian, and Mediterranean studies have reported a common splice site variation in nearly 28% of GSDIII individuals [10].

GSDIII is categorised into two subtypes, GSDIIIa and GSDIIIb and genotype–phenotype variability could be due to differential expression of GDE in different tissues [8, 9]. GSDIIIa, which accounts for up to 85% of GSDIII cases have muscle and liver involvement and most also have cardiac involvement of variable severity. The remaining 15% are classified as type GSDIIIb in whom only liver GDE is deficient [9, 10].

GSDVI (OMIM 232700) is caused by deficiency of the hepatic glycogen phosphorylase enzyme which has 3 different isoforms encoded by 3 different genes (PYGL, PYGM and PYGB). PYGL, PYGB and PYGM are expressed in the liver, brain, and muscle respectively [12], with PYGL variations being most frequently observed.

GSDIX is caused due to deficiency of the enzyme phosphorylase b kinase (PhK). PhK contains 4 subunits alpha (PHKA1, PHKA2), beta (PHKB), gamma (PHKG1 and PHKG2), and delta (CALM1, CALM2 and CALM3) [13]. PHKA1 (GSDIXd–OMIM 300559) is expressed in the liver, PHKA2 (GSDIXa- OMIM 306000) in muscle, and both are X-linked. PHKB (GSDIXb- OMIM 261750) is expressed in both liver and muscle, while PHKG2 (GSDIXc- OMIM 613027) is only expressed in the liver and both these are inherited as autosomal recessive disorders [14].

GSDs have a considerable amount of heterogeneity in their clinical presentations and diagnosis has been largely dependent on invasive biopsies, biochemical assays and measurements of enzyme activity which is not routinely available. This study aims at diagnosing GSDs molecularly into different subtypes using NGS and Sanger technology keeping in mind the number of genes involved and to overcome the difficulties stated above. The study also intended to examine the spectrum of pathogenic variations in the various genes involved in order to add to the available molecular mutation database including the presence of any founder mutations or hotspots.

There are only four other Indian studies published thus far with the largest one including 24 individuals [4, 9]. None of these have implicated any hotspots or founder effect mutations.

Material and methods

Ethical clearance and consent to participate

This study was approved by the institutional ethics committee at the Centre for Human Genetics, Bangalore, India (CHG/077/2020-21/009). Informed consent from parents/ legal guardians of affected children was obtained.

Clinical data

Study design and setting

The clinical and biochemical data for 57 individuals from one southern Indian centre were recruited over 15-year period.

Clinical and biochemical screening

The following clinical and biochemical criterions were recorded for each- age of onset, history of symptoms, height, weight, biochemical parameters including fasting blood glucose, creatine kinase, serum lipids, serum lactic acid, liver function profile, kidney function profile and liver biopsy reports where available. Presenting features were also recorded and included hepatomegaly with or without splenomegaly, hypoglycaemia with a history of seizures, diarrhoea, growth retardation and recurrent infections.

Genetic analysis. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral blood samples. For prenatal diagnosis, chorionic villus sampling or amniotic fluid was used. The coding region and the intron/exon junctions of G6PC1, SLC37A4, and AGL genes were amplified by PCR. Information for primer sequences for GSDIa, GSDIb and GSDIII were obtained from earlier studies [10, 15, 16] [Tables 1–3 in S1 File]. The amplified product was purified and sequenced using the standard protocol for ABI 3500 Genetic Analyser (Applied Biosystems). The results were analysed using Sequencher® software. A targeted NGS panel comprising of 23 genes (AGL, ALDO, ENO3, G6PC1, GAA, GBE1, GYG1, GYS1, GYS2, LAMP2, LDHA1, PFKM, PGAM2, PGM1, PHKA1, PHKA2, PHKB, PHKG2, PRKAG2, PYGL, PYGM, SLC2A2 AND SLC37A4) was used for testing other GSDs. Genes CALM1, CALM2 and PHKG1 were not included in this panel as no pathogenic variants have been identified in these genes thus far. The prepared DNA libraries were sequenced to a mean >80-100X coverage on the Illumina sequencing platform. All likely disease-causing variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing.

Bioinformatic analyses

The pathogenicity of novel mutations was assessed using online bioinformatic tools including Mutation Taster (MT2), Polyphen-2 (version—2.2.2), SIFT (version—5.2.2), Provean (version -1.1), Variant Effect Predictor (Ensembl release 104) for coding regions, and Human splice finder-HSF (http://www.umd.be/HSF3/) and Cryp-Skip (https://cryp-skip.img.cas.cz/) for splice site variations. The identified variants were checked in the 1000 Genome and dbSNP databases for allele frequencies. In addition, 100 control samples from normal individuals (ethnically matched unaffected adults) were screened for the novel variations reported in this study. Multiple sequence alignments were carried out using CLUSTALW OMEGA (http://www.genome.jp/tools-bin/clustalw) to analyse conserved regions across organisms sharing more than 75% sequence homology in all the genes studied.

Multiple programs like HMMTOP, MEMSAT, PHDhtm, TMHMM, TMpred, Topcons and TopPred were used to predict the membrane topology of G6PC1 and SLC37A4 from their respective amino acid sequences. The consensus results from the above were used for graphic illustration using the tool Protter (http://wlab.ethz.ch/protter/) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Topology of (a) G6Pase-α enzyme and (b) G6PT enzyme showing all variations identified in this study.

Fig 1

Results

A total of 57 samples consisting of 33 males and 24 females were molecularly confirmed as GSD’s over a 15-year period. Sanger sequencing identified 21 variations and 28 variations were identified using a targeted NGS based GSD panel. Twenty-seven of the 49 variations detected were novel (Table 1). These included missense, nonsense, deletions, duplications, insertions, and splice site changes in the genes G6PC1 (6), SLC37A4 (5), AGL (24), PYGL (5), PHKA2 (2), PHKB (3) and PHKG2 (4) (Table 8 in S1 File). All observed novel variations were in regions that are conserved across species (Figs 1–6 in S1 File). Parental consanguinity was reported in 45 families (76%) in which 8 families had another affected sibling. The age at diagnosis in all sub-types ranged from 1m to 14y but in 6 individuals with GSDVI who presented with milder symptoms, the age at diagnosis ranged from 4-14y. Parents of 47 probands had confirmation of carrier status by Sanger sequencing. Prenatal counselling was done in eight families seeking prenatal diagnosis [GSDIa (2+ 2 subsequent pregnancies in a single couple), GSDIb (1), GSDIII (3), GSD IXb (1)]. All three couples with previous GSDIII opted against prenatal testing and two of these were confirmed to be affected after birth. One with GSDIa and GSDIXb also declined prenatal diagnosis and went on to have an unaffected child each. Invasive testing with chorion villus sampling was done in the remaining three cases (GSDIa and b). All were unaffected and reviewed postnatally.

Table 1. Novel variation identified in our study.

Patient Age / sex Consanguinity GSD type HGVS Nomenclature
P 03 5m/M YES Ia NM_000151.4(G6PC1):c.227A>T (p.Lys76Met)
P 04 1m/M YES Ia NM_000151.4(G6PC1):c.468G>A (p.Trp156Ter)
P 05 1 y/ F YES Ia NM_000151.4(G6PC1):c.550G>T (p.Gly184Ter)
P 06 10m/F Na Ia NM_000151.4(G6PC1):c.208del (p.Trp70fs)
P 07 1y/M NO Ib NM_001164277.2(SLC37A4):c.945_964del (p.Met315fs)
P 08 14y/M YES Ib NM_001164277.2(SLC37A4):c.1287_1290del (p.Ter430GluextTer?)
P 09 4m/M NO Ib NM_001164277.2(SLC37A4):c.139G>C (p.Asp47His)
P 13 9y/ M YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.1788T>G (p.Tyr596Ter)
P 14 3 y/ F YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.2497C>T (p.Gln833Ter)
P 16 YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.3214G>T (p.Glu1072Ter)
P 18 1.6y/M YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.4371T>G (p.Tyr1457Ter)
p 20 3.5y/M NO III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.947_948del (p.Leu316fs)
P 21 7m/F NO III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.2996del (p.Pro999fs)
P 22 2y/M YES III Exon 30-31del
P 25 8 y/ F YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.664+1G>C
P 28 2 y/ M YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.1612-1G>A
P 31 3 y/ M YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.2949+5G>A
P 32 6 y/ F YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.2949+5G>A
P 37 6y/M YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.3362G>A (p.Arg1121Lys)
P 38 1.2 y/M YES III NM_000642.3(AGL):c.4599G>C(p.Ter1533Lysext*)
P 41 5y/F NO VI NM_002863.5(PYGL):c.72C>A (p.Asn24Lys)
P 44 12y/F YES VI NM_002863.5(PYGL):c.33dup (p.Arg12fs)
P 46 4y/M NO VI NM_002863.5(PYGL):c.2056G>C (p.Gly686Arg)
P 49 21y/M YES IXb NM_000293.3:c.(?_-1)_(1068+1_1069–1)del
P 50 2Y/M YES IXb NM_000293.3:c.(76+1_77–1)_(1068+1_1069–1)del
P 51 6y/F YES IXb NM_000293.3(PHKB):c.1364-2A>G
P 55 1.5Y/F YES IXc NM_000294.3(PHKG2):c.229G>A (p.Glu77Lys)

Clinical description

Progressive abdominal distension caused by liver enlargement was the most common presenting symptom in 71% followed by hypoglycemic seizures in 15% (Table 2). Interestingly, incidental identification of abnormal liver function during investigation of an intercurrent illness accounted for GSD diagnosis in 12%. One case of Type IXb was diagnosed at 1m, because of a previously affected sibling. Thirty-seven children have been on dietary therapy for durations ranging from 6m to 8y. The majority of these were affected with GSDIII. Two individuals each with Type GSDIa and Type GSDIb are deceased. The cause of death was liver cell decompensation and severe infection, respectively.

Table 2. Demographic details of 57 affected individuals with GSD.

Type of GSD
Total No. 53
Gene mutated Number of patients M/ F Parental Consanguinity, No. of families Age range at diagnosis First clinical symptom/presentation Other sibling affected Dietary therapy Outcome
A: alive
D: death
NK: not known
1a G6PC 6 3 M
3 F
5
1 NK
1m-3y Abdominal distension 5 3/5 4 2 D
2 A
1 NK
1b G6PT/
SLC37A4
4 4 M 2 4m-14y Abdominal distension 3
Recurrent infection 2
2/4 No 2 D
3 NK
III AGL 28 14 M
14 F
21 7m-9y Abdominal distension 20
Hypoglycemic seizures 8
3/28 21 22 A
6 NK
VI PYGL 8 4 M
4 F
5 4y-14y Abdominal distension 8 1/8 8 8 A
IXa PHKA2 2 2 M 0 8m-2y Abnormal lipid profile
Abdominal distension
Failure to thrive
No 1 1 A
1 NK
IXb PHKB 3 2 M
1 F
3 4y Abdominal distension
Affected sibling
1 No 1 A
IXc PHKG2 6 3 M
3 F
6 1 ½y-21y Abdominal distension 7
Abnormal liver function 6
No 3 3 A
5 NK

Glycogen storage disease type Ia

We identified 6 disease causing variations in G6PC1, of which 4 are novel. P01, an affected female presented with severe hypoglycemia, grossly elevated serum triglycerides and cholesterol with liver pathology showing distended hepatocytes containing PAS positive, diastase negative material. She had a homozygous missense variation in exon 3, c.355C>G [p.His119Asp], where histidine a basic residue located in the active site of G6PC1 is replaced by acidic aspartic acid. P02 had a homozygous missense variation c.664G>A [p.Gly222Arg], reported as pathogenic and described in the NCBI database as ‘likely pathogenic’ [17]. The arginine at this position was shown to reduce enzyme production. P03 presented with hepatosplenomegaly, raised liver enzymes, hyper triglycerides and penoscrotal hypospadias (having a normal karyotype). The individual had a novel c.227A>T [p.Lys76Met] variation in exon 1. P04 and P05 harboured novel homozygous nonsense variations in exon 4, c.468G>A [p.Trp156X] and c.550G>T [p.Gly184X]. They presented with biochemical abnormalities, grossly abnormal liver function, distended hepatocytes with vacuolated cytoplasm (PAS positive) and early cirrhosis on liver biopsy. Both died shortly after diagnosis, one aged 14m and the other 2y. Severe biochemical derangements and hepatic dysfunction were the reported cause of death in both. P06 had a homozygous novel deletion at position c.208delT in exon 2 leading to premature termination of protein synthesis after 32 amino acids due to a frameshift.

Glycogen storage disease type Ib

Five different variations were identified in SLC37A4 in 4 individuals (P07-P09). P07 harboured novel compound heterozygous variations c.139_148+5delinsCA in exon 1 and c.945_964del in exon 6 leading to premature termination of the protein. This patient had extensive skin pustulosis, tachypnoea, recurrent hypoglycemica and neutropenia. P08 had a novel deletion of c.1287_1290del [p.*430Gluext*52] which causes the reading frame to change, loss of translation at the 3’ end, degradation of the mRNA and instability of the protein [18, 19]. Both had typical clinical features in keeping with the diagnosis of GSDIb. P07 died aged 22m and P08 at the age of 4y of sepsis.

P09 had a homozygous novel missense variation, c.139G>C [p.Asp47His] in exon 2. P10 had a previously reported pathogenic missense variation c.898C>T [p.Arg300Cys] in the major facilitator superfamily domain of the SLC37A4 protein [20].

Glycogen storage disorder III

GDE consists of 1532 amino acids (NP_000019.2) containing the transferase catalytic, the glucosidase catalytic residue, and the glycogen binding domains. Variations in these regions are known to affect protein functioning [10, 21]. In total, 24 variations were found in the AGL gene of which 12 are novel (Fig 2). 8 were in the above-mentioned domains. Affected individuals (14 males and 14 females) were from Karnataka (23), Andhra Pradesh (2) and West Bengal (3). The age at diagnosis ranged from 7m to 9y (median 2.7y, mean 3.7y). 64% had close parental consanguinity ranging from uncle-niece to second cousin marriages. Five had a similarly affected sibling and only one was of non-consanguineous parentage. Two of these had previously deceased siblings and the other three were identified as a result of family screening. Liver enlargement was documented in all and 21 (84%) had a liver biopsy at diagnosis. In the majority, liver biopsy showed enlarged hepatocytes with pale cytoplasm, centrally located nucleus, Periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) positive and diastase sensitive staining material and peri-portal inflammation with liver architecture maintained. 28% of these also showed evidence ranging from peri-portal fibrosis to cirrhosis (P13, P19, P21, P24, P31, P33). None had any tumors or malignancies. Only three had spleen enlargement measuring from 4 to 6cms below the left costal margin on ultrasound scan. None of these had any other evidence of portal hypertension. Three of the affected (P13, P24 and P33) also had cardiac involvement (ECG and echocardiography) with bi-ventricular hypertrophy. Serum liver enzymes (ALT and AST) were elevated in all. Lipid profile was available in 23 affected and all had raised serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels and a majority had a 2–5 fold increase and three had triglyceride levels over 1000 mg/dl. Fasting hypoglycemia with elevated serum lactate values were documented in 14 (56%) at diagnosis and 10 of them had previous hypoglycemic seizures. Elevated serum CPK (creatine phosphokinase) was documented in 17/21 (80.9%) tested. Thirteen (52%) of the affected had motor delay, generalized hypotonia, Electroneuromyography (ENMG) abnormalities and three of these had evidence of cardiac muscle hypertrophy. It was difficult to classify affected individuals into Type IIIa or IIIb, because of young age, absence of exon 3 variations (commonly seen in association with GSDIIIb) and overlapping biochemical findings. However, we believe that 13 (46%) individuals with both hepatic and muscle involvement were likely to have GSDIIIa. All diagnosed with GSDIII (except three not available for regular review), are on dietary intervention with supplementation of uncooked corn starch at frequent intervals and high protein as recommended (GSD III variation list and biochemical parameters available in Table 9 in S1 File).

Fig 2. Distribution of identified pathogenic variants across the AGL gene and its domains, *-novel variations.

Fig 2

Nonsense variation c.104T>A [p.Leu35Ter] were found in 2 unrelated individuals (P11 and P12). Nonsense homozygous variations were also noted in individuals P13-P18 (Table 9 in S1 File). A 4bp homozygous deletion was seen in individual P19. P20, P21 and P22 harboured novel homozygous deletions in exon 8, exon 24 and exon 30–31 respectively. All deletions resulted in altered protein sequences. P23 had a novel homozygous insertion C.3903_3904insA [p.Asn1304Lysfs*7] with a frameshift change leading to premature termination of the protein.

Eleven individuals (P24-P33) were noted to have bi-allelic intronic variations of which 3 are novel (P25, P28, P31 and P32). P25 had a novel variation c.664+1G>C in intron 6 and previous study also reported a different base change at the same site which was pathogenic [22]. P28 harboured c.1612-1G>A in the putative transferase catalytic residue which is predicted to alter splicing, leading to exon skipping. P31 and 32 both had a novel homozygous c.2949+5G>A change in exon 23 which causes exon skipping and alteration of the exon enhancer site.

P29 and P30 had a homozygous splice site variation (c.2681+1G>T) in intron 22. Individuals P34, P35 and P36 had two sets of homozygous missense variations each, c.1080C>T [p.His360Tyr] in exon 9 and p.Asp627Gly in exon 15. P37 and P38 had novel homozygous missense variations c.3362G>A [p.Arg1121Lys] in exon 25 c.4599G>C [p.*1533Tyrext*58] in exon 35 respectively. The variation p.Arg1121Lys is in the glucosidase catalytic domain and bioinformatic tools predict it to be damaging (Table 8 in S1 File). The nonstop variation p.*1533Tyrext*58 replaces the stop codon with tyrosine and the mRNA is read through the 3’ region leading to Non-Stop decay [23].

Glycogen storage disorder type VI

GSDVI results from pathogenic variations in the PYGL gene which consists of 20 exons and comprises 813 amino acids (NP_002854.3). Five individuals (P39-P43) harboured a splice site homozygous variation IVS13+1G>C [c.1620+1G>C] which is known to be pathogenic as it generates a transcript lacking all or part of exon 13 [12, 24]. P41 had a compound heterozygous variation c.1620+1G>C and p.Asn24Lys (novel). P44 harboured a novel homozygous duplication c.33Dup [p.Arg12Alafs*99] in exon 1 which results in a frameshift change and premature truncation of the protein 99 amino acids downstream. P45 had a previously reported homozygous missense variation c.2017G>A [p.Glu673Arg] and P46 harboured a homozygous novel missense variation c.2056G>C [p.Gly686Arg] in exon 17.

Glycogen storage disorder type IXa, b and c

Two individuals P47 and P48 had X-linked variations in PHKA2. P47 had a known pathogenic homozygous missense variation c.134G>A [p.Arg45Gln] in exon 2 previously reported in a Chinese study [25] and P48 had a homozygous missense variation c.2870A>G [P.His957Arg] of unknown significance and in-silico predictions of which are damaging(scores in Table 8 in S1 File). This individual’s history showed hospitalisation thrice for acute gastroenteritis with dehydration, acute prerenal kidney injury, hypoglycaemia, metabolic acidosis and failure to thrive.

P49, P50 and P51 were classified as GSDIXb. Two individuals P49 and P50 harboured large novel deletions (size ~104.30kb.), in exon 2–10 (P49) and exons 2-11(P50). P51 had a novel splice site variation c.1364-2A>G[IVS14-2] in intron 14 affecting the invariant AG acceptor splice site upstream of exon 14 and is predicted to cause exon skipping.

Three unrelated subjects (P52, P53 and P54) had a previously reported pathogenic homozygous missense variation c.317T>A [p.Val106Glu] in exon 4 of PHKG2 [28]. P55 harboured a novel missense variation, c.229G>A (p.Glu77Lys) which is a conserved codon in the helix region of the protein kinase. P56 had a pathogenic variant c.643G>A[p.Asp215Asn] reported previously [26]. P57 had a homozygous novel deletion c.538Del [p.Pro180Leufs*ter15] in PHKG2. Surprisingly, this female now aged 21y has normal growth and menarche and has normal metabolic parameters with dietary intervention from the age of 11y.

Discussion

This study is the largest from India and the first one using a targeted gene panel to assess GSDs. The majority of affected individuals presented with progressive liver enlargement to their local medical facilities. As genetic testing is not uniformly available in other centres, liver biopsy was performed in the majority (84%) for diagnosis. Children with liver biopsy findings suggestive of GSD were referred to our Centre for genetic testing and further management. In 16% of cases, either because of direct referral or being siblings of previously diagnosed GSD cases, genetic testing was preferred over the more invasive liver biopsy. We identified a total of 49 variations in 57 individuals with GSD. Of these, 27 variations have not been previously reported in the 1000 genome project, dbSNP database and were not present in the 100 control samples screened at our centre. These 27 variations (55%) observed in this study are therefore considered to be novel and were present in highly conserved amino acid positions when analysed across species. Novel missense and splice site variations were predicted deleterious by bioinformatic tools. We initially used Sanger sequencing of the exonic regions in the most reported GSDs (GSDIa, GSDIb and GSDIII) in individuals who matched these phenotypes. By this method we were able to identify 21variations in 23 individuals. We were later able to utilise a targeted NGS GSD panel covering 23 genes. Using this technique, we identified 28 different variations in 34 individuals across all GSDs reported.

This enabled us to accurately subtype our GSD cohort, perform genotype-phenotype co-relations, offer reliable genetic counseling and dietary therapy as appropriate.

Parental consanguinity in our cohort was seen in 42 probands (76%). The rate of consanguinity in the southern Indian population is nearly 20%-30% [27] which may, along with the use of targeted sequencing explain the high number of GSDs identified in our region. The most frequent subtypes in our study based on molecular confirmation were GSDIII- 49%, GSDIX- 19%, GSDVI- 14%, GSDIa-10% and GSDIb- 8%. In a recent Chinese study (49 individuals) the most frequent was GSD1a (45%) and only one variation was found in common with our study (AGL c.1735+1G>C) [28]. In an Iranian study (15 individuals), GSD III was the most common subtype reported with parental consanguinity seen in all but 2 families [29], with a single variation found in common with our study (AGL p.D251Efs*23). Both these studies also used targeted panel sequencing for diagnosis. A study from Spain (47 individuals) using exome sequencing to screen GSDs found GSDIII with premature termination of the protein being the most common variation [30].

In our study, variations Lys76Met and His119Asp in the functionally active site of G6PC1 were previously reported with different variations at the same sites [4, 5, 31]. The H119D affects the polarity of this region and is predicted to abolish enzyme activity. All the histidine residues in the protein are placed outside the lumen including H119, which is located at the entry of the lumen membrane. Histidine provides a proton to release the glucose molecules and is also suggested to be the phosphate acceptor site during catalysis [4]. Hence, when replaced by a negatively charged amino acid it is likely to cause altered G6Pase activity. Segregation of the variant in both parents and supportive bioinformatic predictions (Table 8 in S1 File) indicate this variation as disease causing. This patient is now 15 years of age and has normal growth and biochemical parameters on dietary therapy. The novel variation c.227A>T [p.Lys76Met] observed in exon 1 is considered to be ‘likely pathogenic’ as Lys76 is the active site in the PAP2 superfamily domain of the G6Pase protein. There is another variation reported in HGMD at the same position [31]. It is interesting to note that mutational hotspots p.Arg83Cys and p.Gln347X in Caucasians and the p.Arg83His seen in the Chinese population where not observed in our cohort or other Indian studies [32].

A novel missense variation, c.139G>C [p.Asp47His] in exon 2 of SLC37A4 leads to conversion of aspartic acid to histidine which is likely to alter the polarity of this region. This amino acid occupies a crucial position, which when converted to histidine could affect the structure and function of the protein.

The largest subset of GSDs in this study was GSDIII (AGL). In this sub-type, 3 of the 7 nonsense variations were novel [Tyr596X, Gln833X and Tyr1457X]. A few of the nonsense variations seen in our study were also previously reported in different populations, Leu35X in the Spanish [30], Arg910X in the Italian [33], and Gln1376X in the Turkish populations [34], respectively. The homozygous splice site variation (c.2681+1G>T) observed in intron 22 is a reported pathogenic variation and seen in nearly 28% of GSDIII identified individuals in the Italian and Mediterranean studies [10, 34]. The homozygous insertion of nucleotide A in exon 29 (c.3903_3904) seen in one individual has previously been reported in the Ashkenazi Jewish population [35]. The intronic variation (c.1735+1G>T in intron 14) affects the invariant GT donor splice site of exon 14 causing skipping of exon 15 and has been reported previously in individuals of Chinese, Japanese and Korean ethnicity [22].

A missense variation Asp627Gly was often seen along with another pathogenic variant in our study (Table 9 in S1 File) among which 4 individuals were homozygous and 3 were heterozygous for this variation. One hundred control samples were screened for this variation, and we found 1% to be homozygous and 6% heterozygous, indicating that the Asp627 change is unlikely to be disease-causing. A previous study reported this variation Asp627Gly to be disease causing [9], and an Italian study reported compound heterozygous changes where one of the variations was Asp627Tyr and presented with a mild phenotype [36]. In this GSDIII series, 44% of variations caused premature termination of the protein (nonsense, deletions and insertions), 36% were splice site changes and 16% were missense variations.

The splice site homozygous variation IVS13+1G>C [c.1620+1G>C] in PYGL (GSDVI) which was observed in 5 individuals in our study was classified as a founder effect variation as it was observed in 3% of Mennonites who are carriers for this intronic variation and 0.01% who were said to be affected [3]. This variation was also seen in 1 individual from another Indian study [37]. In our study, individuals with the homozygous IVS13+1G>C variation had mild symptoms and responded well to uncooked starch supplementation every 4–6 hourly which is similar to the other reports [3, 38]. The oldest, now aged 16y has growth parameters between the 10-25th centile for age, liver span 8cm, normal liver function tests and is managing well in mainstream school (grade 10).

Two of the 11 GSDIX cases in our study were caused by pathogenic variations in PHKA2 whereas in other studies, PHKA2 accounted for up to 75% [3, 13]. GSDIXb (PHKB) has not been previously reported in any Indian study. We report 3 GSDIXb cases in our series, 2 of which had large deletions (smaller deletions in PHKB gene have been previously reported [27]) and 1 with a splice site variation all of which are novel. Six individuals (54%) had variations in PHKG2 gene causing GSDIXc was the most common of the type IX GSDs. One variation, V106E seen in three individuals. Seven out of 11 individuals diagnosed with type IX GSD were male and this concurs with previous publications. GSDIX individuals usually present with milder symptoms and are not seen for regular reviews as frequently as other subtypes.

As GSDs usually present with very few distinguishing clinical and biochemical features, it is often challenging in deriving genotype-phenotype correlations and classifying them into clinical subtypes without molecular genetics. Our study and most other Indian studies confirm that variations in AGL, G6PC1 and SLC37A4 are spread throughout the gene, with few recurring variations. The exception was the splice site variation c.1620+1G>C seen in PYGL gene in five unrelated individuals which may indicate a hotspot or founder effect variation in the southern Indian population. In view of the above and because more than around 26 different genes are involved in the etiology of GSDs, we recommend that targeted gene panels are efficient in diagnosing GSDs.

Supporting information

S1 File. Figures and tables.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ozen H. Glycogen storage diseases: new perspectives. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(18):2541–2553. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Smit GPA, Rake JP, Akman HO, DiMauro S. The glycogen storage diseases and related disorders. Fernandes J, Saudubray J-M, van den Berghe G, Walter JH (eds) Inborn metabolic diseases: diagnosis and treatment. Springer Medizin; Verlag, Heidelberg; 2006:103–116. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kishnani PS, Austin SL, Abdenur JE, Arn P, Bali DS, Boney A, et al. Diagnosis and management of glycogen storage disease type I: a practice guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med. 2014;16(11):e1; doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.128 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Karthi Sellamuthu, Manimaran Paramasivam, Varalakshmi Perumal, Ganesh Ramaswamy, Kapoor Seema, Goyal Manisha, et al. Mutational spectrum and identification of five novel mutations in G6PC1 gene from a cohort of Glycogen Storage Disease Type 1a. Gene. 2019; 700:7–16; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2019.03.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Chou JY, Matern D, Mansfield BC, Chen YT. Type I glycogen storage diseases: disorders of the glucose-6-phosphatase complex. Curr Mol Med. 2002;2(2):121–143; doi: 10.2174/1566524024605798 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Eghbali M, Abiri M, Talebi S, Noroozi Z, Shakiba M, Rostami P, et al. Genotype-phenotype correlation and description of two novel mutations in Iranian patients with glycogen storage disease 1b (GSD1b). Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020;15(1):35. Published 2020 Jan 31; doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1266-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sentner CP, Vos YJ, Niezen-Koning KN, Mol B, Smit GP. Mutation Analysis in Glycogen Storage Disease Type III Patients in the Netherlands: Novel Genotype-Phenotype Relationships and Five Novel Mutations in the AGL Gene. JIMD Rep. 2013;7:19–26; doi: 10.1007/8904_2012_134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dagli A, Sentner CP, Weinstein DA. Glycogen Storage Disease Type III. 2010. Mar 9 [Updated 2016 Dec 29]. In: Adam MP, Ardinger HH, Pagon RA, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993–2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26372/ [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Perveen S, Gupta N, Kumar M, Kaur P, Chowdhury MR, Kabra M. Spectrum of amyloglucosidase mutations in Asian Indian patients with Glycogen storage disease type III. Am J Med Genet. 2020;182(5):1190–1200; doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.61547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Goldstein JL, Austin SL, Boyette K, Kanaly A, Veerapandiyan A, Rehder C, et al. Molecular analysis of the AGL gene: Identification of 25 novel mutations and evidence of genetic heterogeneity in patients with Glycogen Storage Disease Type III. Genet Med.2010;2: 424–430; doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181d94eaa [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Santer R, Kinner M, Steuerwald U, Kjaergaard S, Skovby F, Simonsen H, et al. Molecular genetic basis and prevalence of glycogen storage disease type IIIA in the Faroe Islands. Eur J Hum Genet. 2001;9(5):388–391; doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5200632 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Chang S, Rosenberg MJ, Morton H, Francomano CA, Biesecker LG. Identification of a mutation in liver glycogen phosphorylase in glycogen storage disease type VI. Hum Mol Genet. 1998;7(5):865–870; doi: 10.1093/hmg/7.5.865 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kishnani PS, Goldstein J, Austin SL, Arn P, Bachrach B, Bali DS, et al. Diagnosis and management of glycogen storage diseases type VI and IX: a clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2019; 21: 772–789; doi: 10.1038/s41436-018-0364-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bali DS, Goldstein JL, Fredrickson K, Rehder C, Boney A, Austin S, et al. Variability of disease spectrum in children with liver phosphorylase kinase deficiency caused by mutations in the PHKG2 gene. Mol Genet Metab. 2014;111(3):309–313; doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2013.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ki CS, Han SH, Kim HJ, Lee SG, Kim EJ, Kim JW, et al. Mutation spectrum of the glucose-6-phosphatase gene and its implication in molecular diagnosis of Korean patients with glycogen storage disease type Ia. Clin Genet. 2004;65(6):487–489; doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2004.00260.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hiraiwa H, Pan CJ, Lin B, Moses SW, Chou JY. Inactivation of the glucose 6-phosphate transporter causes glycogen storage disease type 1b. J Biol Chem. 1999;274(9):5532–5536; doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.9.5532 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Stroppiano M, Regis S, DiRocco M, Caroli F, Gandullia P, Gatti R. Mutations in the glucose-6-phosphatase gene of 53 Italian patients with glycogen storage disease type Ia. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1999;22(1):43–49; doi: 10.1023/a:1005495131118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Keiler KC, Feaga HA. Resolving nonstop translation complexes is a matter of life or death. J Bacteriol. 2014;196(12):2123–2130; doi: 10.1128/JB.01490-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hamby SE, Thomas NS, Cooper DN, Chuzhanova N. A meta-analysis of single base-pair substitutions in translational termination codons (‘nonstop’ mutations) that cause human inherited disease. Human Genomics.2011; 5(4):241–64; doi: 10.1186/1479-7364-5-4-241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Almqvist J, Huang Y, Hovmöller S, Wang DN. Homology modeling of the human microsomal glucose 6-phosphate transporter explains the mutations that cause the glycogen storage disease type Ib. Biochemistry. 2004;43(29):9289–9297; doi: 10.1021/bi049334h [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Shen JJ, Chen YT. Molecular characterization of glycogen storage disease type III. Curr Mol Med. 2002;2(2):167–175; doi: 10.2174/1566524024605752 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Lu C, Qiu Z, Sun M, Wang W, Wei M, Zhang X. Spectrum of AGL mutations in Chinese patients with glycogen storage disease type III: identification of 31 novel mutations. J Hum Genet 61, 641–645 (2016); doi: 10.1038/jhg.2016.24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Klauer AA, van Hoof A. Degradation of mRNAs that lack a stop codon: a decade of nonstop progress. Wiley Interdiscip Rev RNA. 2012;3(5):649–660; doi: 10.1002/wrna.1124 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Davit-Spraul A, Piraud M, Dobbelaere D, Valayannopoulos V, Labrune P, Habes D, et al. Liver glycogen storage diseases due to phosphorylase system deficiencies: diagnosis thanks to non-invasive blood enzymatic and molecular studies. Mol Genet Metab. 2011;104(1–2):137–143; doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2011.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zhang J, Yuan Y, Ma M, Liu Y, Zhang W, Yao F, et al. Clinical and genetic characteristics of 17 Chinese patients with glycogen storage disease type IXa. Gene. 2017;627:149–156; doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2017.06.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Albash B, Imtiaz F, Al-Zaidan H, Al-Manea H, Banemai M, Allam R, et al. Novel PHKG2 mutation causing GSD IX with prominent liver disease: report of three cases and review of literature. Eur J Pediatr. 2014;173(5):647–653; doi: 10.1007/s00431-013-2223-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bittles AH. The impact of consanguinity on the Indian population. Indian J Hum Genet. 2002;8:45–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Liang Y, Du C, Wei H, Zhang C, Zhang M, Hu M, et al. Genotypic and clinical analysis of 49 Chinese children with hepatic glycogen storage diseases. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2020;8(10):e1444; doi: 10.1002/mgg3.1444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Beyzaei Z, Ezgu F, Geramizadeh B, Imanieh MH, Haghighat M, Dehghani SM, et al. Clinical and genetic spectrum of glycogen storage disease in Iranian population using targeted gene sequencing. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 7040; doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86338-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vega AI, Medrano C, Navarrete R, Desviat LR, Merinero B, Rodríguez-Pombo P, et al. Molecular diagnosis of glycogen storage disease and disorders with overlapping clinical symptoms by massive parallel sequencing. Genet Med. 2016;18(10):1037–1043; doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.217 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kozák L, Francová H, Hrabincová E, Stastná S, Pesková K, Elleder M. Identification of mutations in the glucose-6-phosphatase gene in Czech and Slovak patients with glycogen storage disease type Ia, including novel mutations K76N, V166A and 540del5. Hum Mutat. 2000;16(1):89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Koshy A, Ramaswamy K, Correa M, Rekha S. Glycogen storage disease: report of 17 cases from southern India. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2006;25(4):182–184. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lucchiari S, Pagliarani S, Salani S, Filocamo M, Di Rocco M, Melis D, et al. Hepatic and neuromuscular forms of glycogenosis type III: nine mutations in AGL. Hum Mutat. 2006;27(6):600–601; doi: 10.1002/humu.9426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Aoyama Y, Ozer I, Demirkol M, Ebara T, Murase T, Podskarbi T, et al. Molecular features of 23 patients with glycogen storage disease type III in Turkey: a novel mutation p.R1147G associated with isolated glucosidase deficiency, along with 9 AGL mutations. J Hum Genet. 2009;54(11):681; doi: 10.1038/jhg.2009.100 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Parvari R, Shen J, Hershkovitz E, Chen YT, Moses SW. Two new mutations in the 3’ coding region of the glycogen debranching enzyme in a glycogen storage disease type IIIa Ashkenazi Jewish patient. J Inherit Metab Dis. 1998;21(2):141–148; doi: 10.1023/a:1005343625756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Crushell E, Treacy EP, Dawe J, Durkie M, Beauchamp NJ. Glycogen storage disease type III in the Irish population. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2010;33 Suppl 3:S215–S218; doi: 10.1007/s10545-010-9096-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Burwinkel B, Maichele AJ, Aagenaes O, Bakker HD, Lerner A, Shin YS, et al. Autosomal glycogenosis of liver and muscle due to phosphorylase kinase deficiency is caused by mutations in the phosphorylase kinase beta subunit (PHKB). Hum Mol Genet. 1997;6(7):1109–1115; doi: 10.1093/hmg/6.7.1109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Korula S, Danda S, Paul PG, Mathai S, Simon A. Hepatic Glycogenoses Among Children-Clinical and Biochemical Characterization: Single-Center Study. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2020;10(3):222–227; doi: 10.1016/j.jceh.2019.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Elsayed Abdelkreem

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

11 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-06833Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disordersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Shetty,

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. Besides the important reviewers' comments shown below, authors should also address the following points:

  • In the introduction, please clarify the knowledge gap and study objectives.

  •  Please, follow reporting guidelines, such as STREGA) (Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, von Elm E, Khoury MJ, Cohen B, Davey-Smith G, Grimshaw J, Scheet P, Gwinn M, Williamson RE, Zou GY, Hutchings K, Johnson CY, Tait V, Wiens M, Golding J, van Duijn C, McLaughlin J, Paterson A, Wells G, Fortier I, Freedman M, Zecevic M, King R, Infante-Rivard C, Stewart A, Birkett N; STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Feb 3;6(2):e22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022.)

  • In methodology, please, clarify study design, setting, and period of recruitment/data collection.

  • Provide diagnostic criteria used for GSD before genetic testing.

  • Please, describe all genetic variants according to HGVS criteria and follow American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Guidelines for variants classification.

  • Authors should summarize the currently long results section (providing main findings), avoiding repetition of data already present tables. Moreover, authors should not provide interpretations or discussions of findings in the results section (this should be done in the discussion).

  • Table 3 is very condensed; it is better to provide it as a supplementary and provide a summary of the most important findings in the main text.

  • Authors have to discuss study limitations and generalizability.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 22 2022 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: https://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,

Elsayed Abdelkreem, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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: Specific comments to authors:

Kumar and co-others in this research article report on ‘‘Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders’’. Congratulations on performing this outstanding research. The manuscript is properly written, and of clinical interest although the authors need to address some points as follows:

Major considerations:

- Please place the methods section before the results.

- In table 1, compare the phenotypes of different GSDs types by percentage, mean, median and P-value to be more representative.

- Please add to table 1 the different associated affected systems (muscular, renal, GIT).

- Mention the growth parameters of the patients in different genotypes and how much they are affected according to growth percentiles.

- Mention the age of death of the deceased patients.

- You mentioned the dietary regimens for patients with GSD III. What about type I, VI and IX in your cohort?

- In table 3: the heading of the 2nd column is incorrect. Did any of your patients with GSD III have splenomegaly, especially the ones with liver fibrosis? The absolute figures of weight and height are not representative. Please add the percentiles.

- Did any of the patients with GSD III have liver steatosis in liver biopsy, which is a common finding in this type?

- You mentioned that the surviving patients are doing fine!! This is a vague sentence. Please mention is short the mean duration of follow up of your patients and their prognosis regarding hepatomegaly, growth affection, and metabolic control.

- Focus in the results on your findings and not too much on the theoretical background.

- Explain why did you perform a liver biopsy for your patients which is an invasive procedure with its hazards and not conclusive while they have a genetic testing? Or the genetic testing was available later on?

- Did any of your patients have a prenatal diagnosis as you mentioned in the methods? What is its value unless a therapeutic abortion was planned?

- I wonder if you excluded any patients who had a similar clinical and phenotypic picture as GSD and turned out not to be GSD (e.g. fatty acid oxidation defects, fructose 1,6 biphosphatase deficiency, some types of CDGs). This will add to the value of your work in offering genetic testing in these suspected cases and not to depend only on the clinical and biochemical profile.

Minor considerations:

- The manuscript needs revision for minor editing and grammar mistakes.

- Please stick to either the English of American style in writing the whole manuscript.

Thanks

Reviewer #2: It was very interesting to read the manuscript titled: "Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders". The manuscript is very well, describing the results of genetic testing in an Indian cohort of patients with GSD over a 15-year period. The results are very well presented.

Reviewer #3: The authors presented a good study.

1. Please consult ACMG recommendations to classify each newly identified variant (Ellard 2020). It is highly important to have enough evidence in order to classify variant as “pathogenic”. Please use accordingly pathogenic, likely pathogenic and VUS (classes 1, 2 and 3) for each new variant.

2. The manuscript would benefit from shortening the Introduction section.

3. Page 4, line 96, Correct typo: SLC37A4, not SLC37A41

Reviewer #4: The authors reported 57 patients with glycogen storage disease who underwent genetic analyses in India. This study provides important evidence for ethnic founder effects in the Indian population. This manuscript includes the interest of the readers of the journal. However, this paper does not follow the manner of publishing paper, as below.

There are too much textbook descriptions in the 'Introduction' part. Please omit the general description of glycogen storage diseases and provide the introduction on the founder effects in India and other regions.

There is no distinction between results and discussion. The results part should not include the authors' interpretations but only the facts. Please compare with previous reports and describe the authors' interpretations in the discussion section.

Criteria for determining novel mutations as pathogenic is ambiguous and not uniform. Online bioinformatic tools are helpful but only secondary evidence, so the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Guidelines should be used to decide. If possible, please add the values of each enzyme activity.

Please describe the details of the supportive bioinformatic predictions (Page 9, Lines 179-180), the bioinformatic tools predicting (Page 20, Line 270), and in-silico predictions (Page 21, Line 295).

Page 9, Lines 186-188

The notation 'likely pathogenic' is the same as the description of P02. Please clarify whether this is the authors' opinion or a quote from the NCBI database.

Page 9, Lines 190-191

This description only tells us that they had cirrhosis, not whether they had glycogen storage disease.

Page 11, Table III

Normal ranges for height, weight, and liver size vary with age. Please describe whether these values are normal.

Reviewer #5: Congratulations for detailed and nice results

The authors have evaluation the GSD patients with sanger sequencing and they have subtyped the cases in detail. This is a well organized and well written paper.

**********

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: Engy Mogahed

Reviewer #2: Yes: Hanaa El-Karaksy

Reviewer #3: Yes: Maja Stojiljkovic

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes: Bita Geramizadeh

[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. 2022 Jul 14;17(7):e0270373. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0270373.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 May 2022

Please find below our responses/changes made to the editors and reviewers comments

- Besides the important reviewers' comments shown below, authors should also address the following points:

• In the introduction, please clarify the knowledge gap and study objectives.

- Response: We have added a few lines to address this. (lines 115-122)

- Please, follow reporting guidelines, such as STREGA) (Little J, Higgins JP, Ioannidis JP, Moher D, Gagnon F, von Elm E, Khoury MJ, Cohen B, Davey-Smith G, Grimshaw J, Scheet P, Gwinn M, Williamson RE, Zou GY, Hutchings K, Johnson CY, Tait V, Wiens M, Golding J, van Duijn C, McLaughlin J, Paterson A, Wells G, Fortier I, Freedman M, Zecevic M, King R, Infante-Rivard C, Stewart A, Birkett N; STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies. STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Feb 3;6(2):e22. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000022.)

- Response: We have complied with STREGA guidelines as suggested.

-In methodology, please, clarify study design, setting, and period of recruitment/data collection.

- Response :This has been included. (Line 134-135)

-

- Provide diagnostic criteria used for GSD before genetic testing.

- Response: Line 134-142 has the necessary information

-Please, describe all genetic variants according to HGVS criteria and follow American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Guidelines for variants classification.

- Response: This has been done as suggested. (ref: Table I and supplementary file)

-Authors should summarize the currently long results section (providing main findings), avoiding repetition of data already present tables. Moreover, authors should not provide interpretations or discussions of findings in the results section (this should be done in the discussion).

- Response: This has been changed to the extent possible.

-Table 3 is very condensed; it is better to provide it as a supplementary and provide a summary of the most important findings in the main text.

-Response: ,As suggested we agree to put table III as supplementary data. The summary of the most important findings from this table are already incorporated in the main text under result section ‘GSDIII’ subheading.

- Authors have to discuss study limitations and generalizability.

- Response: We cannot think of any limitations other than cost and diagnosing based on variable clinical phenotype which we have encountered and mentioned in the paper. Similarly with generalizability, the technology employed, difficulty in genotype phenotype correlations have been mentioned.

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: Specific comments to authors:

Kumar and co-others in this research article report on ‘‘Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders’’. Congratulations on performing this outstanding research. The manuscript is properly written, and of clinical interest although the authors need to address some points as follows:

Major considerations:

- Please place the methods section before the results.

- Response: This has been done.

- In table 1, compare the phenotypes of different GSDs types by percentage, mean, median and P-value to be more representative.

- Please add to table 1 the different associated affected systems (muscular, renal, GIT).

- Mention the growth parameters of the patients in different genotypes and how much they are affected according to growth percentiles.

- Response: We thank the reviewer for the three suggestions above. Table 1 details the novel variations in GSD subtypes noted in this study without any clinical details included. The authors of this manuscript are also compiling a separate manuscript specifically detailing individual clinical phenotypes, systems involved and severity, percentages and statistical frequencies in all GSD sub-types studied so far. They will also discuss the long-term clinical profiling and outcomes in affected individuals on dietary and other interventions, highlighting improvements gained from intervention over time. We wish to submit that adding a large volume of additional detail on clinical phenotypes, disease course and the ensuing discussion in this manuscript may dilute the clarity of the already large volume of data presented here. It is the intent of the authors to focus on the molecular profiling with emphasis on structure of novel variations in relation to the presenting clinical symptomatology in this write-up.

- Mention the age of death of the deceased patients.

- Response: This has been added in text for both Type 1a (line no 227-228) and 1b (line no 241) in text.

- You mentioned the dietary regimens for patients with GSD III. What about type I, VI and IX in your cohort?

- Response: The numbers of individuals on dietary therapy with uncooked corn starch is listed in Table II for the various GSD subtypes. A total of 37 individuals in various GSD subtypes are on tailored dietary therapy

- In table 3: the heading of the 2nd column is incorrect.

- Response: This has been changed. Thank you

-Did any of your patients with GSD III have splenomegaly, especially the ones with liver fibrosis? The absolute figures of weight and height are not representative. Please add the percentiles.

- Response: We have added the numbers of cases with spleen enlargement. The weight and heights have now been represented by their centiles as suggested in Table 10 of supplementary file.

- Did any of the patients with GSD III have liver steatosis in liver biopsy, which is a common finding in this type?

- Response: The majority of patients where liver biopsy was done in GSD III had enlarged distended hepatocytes with pale cytoplasm, staining positive with PAS and diastase resistant indicating the presence of glycogen. The liver biopsy slides were reviewed and none were found to show liver steatosis.

- You mentioned that the surviving patients are doing fine!! This is a vague sentence. Please mention is short the mean duration of follow up of your patients and their prognosis regarding hepatomegaly, growth affection, and metabolic control.

- Response: This has been altered as suggested.

- Focus in the results on your findings and not too much on the theoretical background.

- Response: We have moved some parts of the results into the discussion to address the above. I hope this is now acceptable.

- Explain why did you perform a liver biopsy for your patients which is an invasive procedure with its hazards and not conclusive while they have a genetic testing? Or the genetic testing was available later on?

- Response: The reasons for large numbers of affected individuals with a liver biopsy done prior to genetic testing is now added in the first paragraph of discussion (Line no 341-345).

- Did any of your patients have a prenatal diagnosis as you mentioned in the methods? What is its value unless a therapeutic abortion was planned?

- Response: Yes, a number of families opted for prenatal diagnosis with the intent of medical termination of an affected pregnancy. Details of this has been added under results (Line no 190-195).

- I wonder if you excluded any patients who had a similar clinical and phenotypic picture as GSD and turned out not to be GSD (e.g. fatty acid oxidation defects, fructose 1,6 biphosphatase deficiency, some types of CDGs). This will add to the value of your work in offering genetic testing in these suspected cases and not to depend only on the clinical and biochemical profile.

- Response: The clinical features and ages at presentation in the differential diagnosis to GSD allowed us to include TMS for early biochemical derangement in the majority, which were then followed up by exome sequencing. Two cases of Fructose1,6, biphosphatase deficiency and one each of primary fatty oxidation defect and CDG in early infancy were molecularly confirmed and not included in this study. All these are on regular review at our centre

Minor considerations:

- The manuscript needs revision for minor editing and grammar mistakes.

- Response: We have made changes.

- Please stick to either the English of American style in writing the whole manuscript.

- Response: We have kept to the UK English style.

Reviewer #2: It was very interesting to read the manuscript titled: "Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders". The manuscript is very well, describing the results of genetic testing in an Indian cohort of patients with GSD over a 15-year period. The results are very well presented.

Reviewer #3: The authors presented a good study.

1. Please consult ACMG recommendations to classify each newly identified variant (Ellard 2020). It is highly important to have enough evidence in order to classify variant as “pathogenic”. Please use accordingly pathogenic, likely pathogenic and VUS (classes 1, 2 and 3) for each new variant.

- Response: We have classified the variants according to the ACMG guidelines.

2. The manuscript would benefit from shortening the Introduction section.

- Response: We have reduced the introduction part as much as possible without making it sound abrupt. I hope this is fine.

3. Page 4, line 96, Correct typo: SLC37A4, not SLC37A41

- Response: Corrected, Thank you.

Reviewer #4: The authors reported 57 patients with glycogen storage disease who underwent genetic analyses in India. This study provides important evidence for ethnic founder effects in the Indian population. This manuscript includes the interest of the readers of the journal. However, this paper does not follow the manner of publishing paper, as below.

-There are too much textbook descriptions in the 'Introduction' part. Please omit the general description of glycogen storage diseases and provide the introduction on the founder effects in India and other regions.

- Response: We have reduced the introduction part as much as possible without detracting from the readability and flow. We have included the one other plausible founder effect variation published and mentioned the other Indian studies published. I hope this is fine.

-There is no distinction between results and discussion. The results part should not include the authors' interpretations but only the facts. Please compare with previous reports and describe the authors' interpretations in the discussion section.

- Response: We have moved parts of our results that include discussions into the discussion section.

-Criteria for determining novel mutations as pathogenic is ambiguous and not uniform. Online bioinformatic tools are helpful but only secondary evidence, so the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Guidelines should be used to decide. If possible, please add the values of each enzyme activity.

- Response: This has been done. Measurement of enzyme activity is, unfortunately not available in our centre.

-Please describe the details of the supportive bioinformatic predictions (Page 9, Lines 179-180), the bioinformatic tools predicting (Page 20, Line 270), and in-silico predictions (Page 21, Line 295).

- Response: These are presented in detail in the supplementary files along with scores for each bioinformatic tool used.

Page 9, Lines 186-188

-The notation 'likely pathogenic' is the same as the description of P02. Please clarify whether this is the authors' opinion or a quote from the NCBI database.

- Response: Clarified in the text.

Page 9, Lines 190-191

-This description only tells us that they had cirrhosis, not whether they had glycogen storage disease.

- Response: Thank you for highlighting this, this has been modified with additional details of liver biopsy findings.

Page 11, Table III

-Normal ranges for height, weight, and liver size vary with age. Please describe whether these values are normal.

- Response: The age related centiles for growth parameters and the age based increase in liver spans have been clarified in the table as suggested. I hope this should be satisfactory

Reviewer #5: Congratulations for detailed and nice results

The authors have evaluation the GSD patients with sanger sequencing and they have subtyped the cases in detail. This is a well organized and well written paper.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Elsayed Abdelkreem

9 Jun 2022

Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders

PONE-D-22-06833R1

Dear Dr. Shetty,

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,

Elsayed Abdelkreem, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: All points have been addressed and the manuscript in my opinion is suitable for publication.

Thanks

Reviewer #2: Well written manuscript, interesting work. There are no additional comments. All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The authors have adequately addressed my comments. This is a useful paper for world-wide researchers besides indeian clinicians.

**********

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: Yes: Engy Adel Mogahed

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Maja Stojiljkovic, IMGGE, full research professor, University of Belgrade

Reviewer #4: Yes: Mitsuru Kubota

**********

Acceptance letter

Elsayed Abdelkreem

17 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-06833R1

Molecular and clinical profiling in a large cohort of Asian Indians with glycogen storage disorders

Dear Dr. Shetty:

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. Elsayed Abdelkreem

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE


Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

RESOURCES