Parkinsonism & related disorders · 2024
Genome sequencing reanalysis increases the diagnostic yield in dystonia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fellner Avi, Wali Gurusidheshwar M, Mahant Neil, Grosz Bianca R, Ellis Melina, Narayanan Ramesh K, Ng Karl, Davis Ryan L, Tchan Michel C, Kotschet Katya, Yeow Dennis, Rudaks Laura I, Siow Sue-Faye, Wali Gautam, Yiannikas Con, Hobbs Matthew, Copty Joseph, Geaghan Michael, Darveniza Paul, Liang Christina, Williams Laura J, Chang Florence C F, Morales-Briceño Hugo, Tisch Stephen, Hayes Michael, Whyte Scott, Kummerfeld Sarah, Kennerson Marina L, Cowley Mark J, Fung Victor S C, Sue Carolyn M, Kumar Kishore R
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We investigated the contribution of genomic data reanalysis to the diagnostic yield of dystonia patients who remained undiagnosed after prior genome sequencing.
METHODS: Probands with heterogeneous dystonia phenotypes who underwent initial genome sequencing (GS) analysis in 2019 were included in the reanalysis, which was performed through gene-specific discovery collaborations and systematic genomic data reanalysis.
RESULTS: Initial GS analysis in 2019 (n = 111) identified a molecular diagnosis in 11.7 % (13/111) of cases. Reanalysis between 2020 and 2023 increased the diagnostic yield by 7.2 % (8/111); 3.6 % (4/111) through focused gene-specific clinical correlation collaborative efforts [VPS16 (two probands), AOPEP and POLG], and 3.6 % (4/111) by systematic reanalysis completed in 2023 [NUS1 (two probands) and DDX3X variants, and a microdeletion encompassing VPS16]. Seven of these patients had a high phenotype-based dystonia score ≥3. Notable unverified findings in four additional cases included suspicious variants of uncertain significance in FBXL4 and EIF2AK2, and potential phenotypic expansion associated with SLC2A1 and TREX1 variants.
CONCLUSION: GS data reanalysis increased the diagnostic yield from 11.7 % to 18.9 %, with potential extension up to 22.5 %. While optimal timing for diagnostic reanalysis remains to be determined, this study demonstrates that periodic re-interrogation of dystonia GS datasets can provide additional genetic diagnoses, which may have significant implications for patients and their families.
METHODS: Probands with heterogeneous dystonia phenotypes who underwent initial genome sequencing (GS) analysis in 2019 were included in the reanalysis, which was performed through gene-specific discovery collaborations and systematic genomic data reanalysis.
RESULTS: Initial GS analysis in 2019 (n = 111) identified a molecular diagnosis in 11.7 % (13/111) of cases. Reanalysis between 2020 and 2023 increased the diagnostic yield by 7.2 % (8/111); 3.6 % (4/111) through focused gene-specific clinical correlation collaborative efforts [VPS16 (two probands), AOPEP and POLG], and 3.6 % (4/111) by systematic reanalysis completed in 2023 [NUS1 (two probands) and DDX3X variants, and a microdeletion encompassing VPS16]. Seven of these patients had a high phenotype-based dystonia score ≥3. Notable unverified findings in four additional cases included suspicious variants of uncertain significance in FBXL4 and EIF2AK2, and potential phenotypic expansion associated with SLC2A1 and TREX1 variants.
CONCLUSION: GS data reanalysis increased the diagnostic yield from 11.7 % to 18.9 %, with potential extension up to 22.5 %. While optimal timing for diagnostic reanalysis remains to be determined, this study demonstrates that periodic re-interrogation of dystonia GS datasets can provide additional genetic diagnoses, which may have significant implications for patients and their families.