The clinical presentations of the three patients reported here are typical for pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy caused by α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency. Mild developmental delay, mild hypotonia, mild posterior corpus callosum thinning and posterior white matter volume loss on brain magnetic resonance imaging, and most characteristically a seizure disorder responsive to pyridoxine in part or in whole have been reported in most patients. It is remarkable that all three patients reported here have macrocephaly, without a tendency towards the previously reported feature of hydrocephalus (
Baxter 2001).
The clinical entity of pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy has allowed the identification of associated genetic disorders (). Most commonly patients are affected by α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, although other disorders not linked to this gene also exist (
Bennett et al. 2005;
Kabakus et al. 2008). Following the recognition of mutations in the
ALDH7A1 gene, it is now possible to describe the clinical phenotype associated with this specific disorder. The outcome of these patients can be divided in three categories. Many patients with α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency respond with near complete seizure control to treatment with pyridoxine alone, with perhaps only recurrence of seizures with fever, as is present in our patients. Forty-seven such cases were presented in a recent report from the North American Registry of pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy (groups 1 and 2 in
Gospe 2002). A subset of these patients, which we call group 1, have normal developmental outcome, including our patient 1 (8 cases in
Basura et al. 2009; case C2 in
Mills et al. 2006; 7/28 cases in
Haenggli et al. 1991; 1 case in
Kluger et al. 2008; patient 2 in
Striano et al. 2009; 3/11 patients in
Been et al. 2005; 1/6 cases in
RamachandranNair and Parameswaran 2005; 2/9 patients with elevated pipecolic acid in
Plecko et al. 2005; and 1 case in
Millet et al. 2010). In contrast, the majority of patients with complete seizure control have mild to moderate developmental delays; these we call group 2, which includes patients 2 and 3 reported here. Some patients though have a worse prognosis; these we call group 3. While the seizure disorder is greatly improved with pyridoxine, the patients still develop seizures that require additional anticonvulsant medications. In some, the seizures are controlled with additional anticonvulsant therapy (8/47 cases in group 3 according to
Basura et al. 2009), whereas other patients have seizures that are not completely under control with anticonvulsant therapy (another 8/47 cases according to
Basura et al. 2009;
Nicolai et al. 2006). Patients with persistent seizures tend to have worse developmental outcome (
Basura et al. 2009); they always have developmental delays and usually have abnormal findings on brain MRI, such as seen in patient 3 reported here.
It will be important to study whether these differences in outcome are related to the genetic basis of the condition as well as to nongenetic factors. Clearly the underlying gene causing the pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy is important, as patients with pyridoxine-responsive encephalopathy that present with hypsarrhythmia (EEG), do not have mutations in
ALDH7A1, and have normal biochemical parameters such as pipecolic acid (
Bennett et al. 2009;
Kanno et al. 2007, patient 5) tend to have an excellent outcome with normal development (). Thus, this condition should be distinguished from α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency. Within α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, formal data relating genotype to phenotype are currently not available, but preliminary evidence suggests that the severity of the mutation may be contributory, while additional factors are also likely contributory. Patients with a normal developmental outcome have had mutations that may be associated with residual enzyme activity such as the mutation c.1512delG in patient C2 in
Mills et al. 2006, the mutation T297R (in addition to R82X) in patient K3019 in
Bennett et al. 2009, and the “leaky” splicing mutation IVS-16(+5)G>A (in addition to R82X) in patient 2 in
Striano et al. 2009. It is interesting that our patient 1 with normal developmental outcome has this same splice mutation. The residual activity of the mutation F410L reported in a patient with normal developmental outcome is not known (
Millet et al. 2010). In contrast, a patient homozygous for the A171V mutation, which on expression had no residual activity (
Mills et al. 2006, patient G) was reported as having low-normal cognitive development with dysfunction in expressive language (
Schmitt et al. 2010, group 2).
The location of missense mutations in the gene can be informative regarding the functionality of the protein product. gives the locations of all the missense mutations combined from the literature and our own series. A high number of missense mutations cluster in exons 14, 15, and 16. In contrast, only four missense mutations are located in the first half of the gene consisting of exons 1 through 8. Splicing mutations are located across the gene as are various nonsense mutations, both premature stop mutations, and small insertions and deletions. The frequency of larger deletions comprising whole exons has not yet been studied. Several recurring mutations have been noted. Nine common mutations comprise 61% (90/147) of the reported disease alleles. A strategy of first analyzing a panel of recurring mutations would be possible prior to sequencing the entire gene. However, given that these recurring mutations are located throughout the gene, sequencing of the whole coding sequence remains a cost effective strategy.
Molecular modeling using the human ALDH7A1 crystal structure indicates that missense mutations in
ALDH7A1 can be divided into three categories. The first category consists of mutations that affect NAD+ cofactor binding or catalysis. Mutations that alter the substrate binding pocket make up the second category. The last category contains mutations that do not appear to affect cofactor or substrate binding or enzyme catalysis but potentially disrupt dimer or tetramer assembly. The mutations are expected to have different effects on enzyme activity. Missense mutations altering cofactor binding and catalysis are predicted to have the most significant impact on enzyme activity. The E399Q, E399D, and P403L mutations fall into this category. Previous studies have shown that the E399Q mutant is inactive (
Mills et al. 2006). The proline located at residue 403 appears to be required for proper alignment of many residues that directly interact with the cofactor (). Replacing this residue with a leucine would remove the proline-induced bend in the protein backbone that confers proper residue conformation within the cofactor binding site. Other mutations such as A171V and T297K change the shape of the substrate pocket. The exact effect on substrate binding and specificity for these mutations has yet to be determined. Similar to other aldehyde dehydrogenase enzymes such as succinic semialdehyde dehydrogenase ALDH5A1 (
Murphy et al. 2003), the ALDH7A1 enzyme has catalytic activity on several different compounds (
Brocker et al. 2010), and it is interesting to postulate that such substitutions could alter how the enzyme metabolizes a specific compound without affecting or abolishing the activity towards other substrates. Overexpression studies will be needed to provide definitive proof of the mutations on the activity of the enzyme towards its substrates (
Mills et al. 2006).
A number of other missense mutations, such as I431F, do not appear to alter the cofactor or substrate binding site conformations. Instead, these mutations change regions responsible for dimer and tetramer assembly. For example, substitution of an arginine for glycine at residue 477 would have a significant effect on dimer formation. The residue lies between the three-stranded anti-parallel β-sheets that comprise a large section of the oligomerization domains facilitating dimer assembly. Dimer formation is highly dependent on the interaction between these two hydrophobic surfaces (
Rodriguez-Zavala and Weiner 2001). An arginine would introduce a very large positive charge between these two regions and significantly change the hydrophobicity as reflected in the associated hydropathy indices for glycine and arginine, which are −0.4 and −4.5, respectively (). The G83E mutation is another mutation that would have an effect on the quaternary structure, but instead of hindering dimer formation, we expect it will have a negative effect on tetramer formation. A highly conserved arginine (R82) is found immediately N-terminal to G83. In ALDH proteins, this arginine facilitates tetramer assembly through salt-bridge formation with a conserved serine located within the adjacent dimer. The interaction between R82 and S499 within an opposing monomer is supported by the human ALDH7A1 crystal structure. The G83E mutant would place a negatively charged glutamate in very close proximity to R82 and most likely hinder or possibly abolish the R82-S499 salt bridge, thus deleteriously affecting multimer formation and enzyme activity. Studies have shown that replacing the conserved arginine (R84) found in ALDH1 with glutamine significantly disrupted tetramer assembly and reduced enzyme activity by 70% (
Rodriguez-Zavala and Weiner 2001). The fact that patients heterozygous for any of these mutations do not exhibit the phenotype associated with pyridoxine-dependent epilepsy suggests the possibility that these inactive subunits do not act as a dominant negative and may be able to form functional mutimeric protein when coupled to enzymatically active monomers.
Additional nongenetic factors that have been proposed to contribute to the neurodevelopmental outcome include age at onset of seizures with seizure onset >1 year portending a better prognosis, early institution of treatment, and higher pyridoxine dosing (
Baxter 2001;
Gospe 2002). Although no relation between the time of diagnosis or start of treatment and cognitive outcome was found in a series of 29 patients (
Haenggli et al. 1991;
Gospe 1998), prenatal treatment is still considered a possible beneficial factor. Analysis of the outcome of patients homozygous for the same common severe mutation E399Q can reflect this impact. Some patients with this mutation can have substantial developmental delay and seizures that are not completely controlled with pyridoxine (group 3; e.g.,
Bennett et al. 2009, patient K3020), whereas two other patients homozygous for this same mutation but treated prenatally with a high dose of pyridoxine had a normal developmental outcome (
Bok et al. 2010) (group 1). Yet, prenatal treatment with pyridoxine alone does not completely protect against developmental delay (
Rankin et al. 2007) reflecting additional complexity beyond prenatal treatment alone.
The pathogenesis of this condition still has not been clearly elucidated. The interaction of piperideine-6-carboxylate with pyridoxal-phosphate through a Knoevenagel reaction forming a complex, and the clinical response of treatment with pyridoxine has resulted in the suggestion of a central pyridoxine deficiency state due to inactivation of central pyridoxal-phosphate (
Mills et al. 2006;
Plecko and Stöckler 2009). Low levels of pyridoxal-phosphate in the frontal and occipital cortex were previously measured post mortem only in one patient (
Lott et al. 1978). In patients with pyridox(am) ine phosphate oxidase (PNPO) deficiency (OMIM 610090), a clear deficiency of central pyridoxal-phosphate exists, as documented by low levels in CSF and an increase in metabolites reflecting impaired activities of pyridoxal-phosphate-dependent enzymes such as disturbances in monoamines, threonine, and glycine (
Mills et al. 2005;
Hoffmann et al. 2007). Similar findings were hypothesized in patients with pyridoxine-dependent seizures (
Plecko and Stöckler 2009). In contrast, in our patients with α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase deficiency, we did not find increases in threonine or glycine in serum or CSF, and no deficiencies in the monoamines homovanillic acid and 5-hydroxyindolacetic acid, or an increase in 3-O-methyldopa in CSF or in vanillactic acid in urine. Similar differences between the two conditions have been remarked on before (
Hoffmann et al. 2007 and K. Hyland, personal communication). Thus, the pathophysiology is most likely more complex than a simple central deficiency of pyridoxal-phosphate and will require studies of patients and animal models. One possibility could be a deficiency limited to a region or a specific cell type in the brain. Direct toxicity of α-amino adipic semialdehyde binding to proteins or abnormalities in GABA metabolism have been proposed (
Bok et al. 2010;
Gospe 2002). The activity of α-aminoadipic semialdehyde dehydrogenase on other substrates such as betaine aldehyde and
trans-2-nonenal opens the possibility of other contributing toxic substances (
Brocker et al. 2010). Such a more complex pathophysiology can explain the only partial protection offered by pyridoxine treatment and the difficulty in establishing an easy genotype to phenotype correlation. In addition, the rarity of the condition limiting the number of patients for study and the often compound heterozygous nature of the mutations make studies of genotype-phenotype correlation difficult.