Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study shows frequent MED-12 mutations in uterine leiomyomas among Nigerian women, highlighting clinical implications.
OBJECTIVE: To identify, characterize and determine the frequency of MED-12 exon 2 mutations in the uterine leiomyomas (ULs) of Nigerian women. MED-12 mutations are the most common molecular subtype of uterine leiomyomas and have been linked with ULs in Western populations. The frequency of MED-12 mutations among Nigerian women has not been established. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS: Nigerian women with uterine leiomyomas undergoing myomectomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Fibroid weight and other characteristics such as age, weight, BMI, parity and age at menarche. Identification and frequency of MED-12 mutations. DNA was extracted from the fibroid and adjacent myometrial tissues, and the MED-12 gene (exon 2) was amplified by PCR, followed by Sanger sequencing. RESULTS: The sequencing data showed that 54.9% (56/102) of the fibroid tissues had MED-12 mutations compared with the adjacent myometrium. Of this percentage, 49.01% was found in codon 44, and c.131 G>A was the most frequent (24.51%), followed by c.130 G>C (5.88%). Other mutations were found in codons 43 (c.128 A>C) and 36 (c.107 T>G). Three samples had a mutation at intron 1 (c.100-8T>A). In summary, we identified 11 variants at four positions. Further computational prediction analysis showed that of the 11 variants, only 27.3% were tolerated, and all variants were either disease-causing, passenger mutations or probably damaging. However, there was no significant difference between the characteristics of the women whose ULs were MED-12 positive and negative. CONCLUSION: Our study represents the first comprehensive analysis of MED-12 mutations in ULs of Nigerian women. This study indicates that analyzing MED-12 mutations in ULs of Nigerian women is essential for clinical practice and informing precision medicine for Nigerian women with ULs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rotimi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: