1. Introduction
2. Case Presentation
2.1. Genetic Testing
A, Family pedigree of the patient; B, NDUFA9 structure and variations; C, The highly conserved state of the variant amino acid across the evolution of species; D, Electropherograms from Sanger confirmation in family members showing NDUFA9 (c.1069C>G, p.Arg357Gly), heterozygous and homozygous mutant.
| Computational Tools | Prediction | Score | Rank score |
|---|---|---|---|
| BayesDel addAF | Damaging | 0.2578 | 0.7932 |
| BayesDel noAF | Damaging | 0.1325 | 0.7905 |
| DEOGEN2 | Tolerated | 0.3327 | 0.7026 |
| EIGEN | Pathogenic | 0.7797 | 0.8482 |
| FATHMM | Damaging | -1.67, -1.37 | 0.8281 |
| MutPred | Damaging | 0.73 | 0.8637 |
| Mutation assessor | Medium | 3.235 | 0.8961 |
| MutationTaster | Disease Causing | 1 | 0.81 |
| PROVEAN | Damaging | -3.61, -5.63 | 0.8684 |
| SIFT | Damaging | 0, 0.002 | 0.9125 |
3. Discussion
Three-dimensional reconstruction of the second structure of the protein. The wild-type and mutant amino acids differ in size. The mutant residue is smaller than the wild-type residue. This will cause a possible loss of external interactions. The hydrophobicity of the wild-type and mutant residue differs, as well.


