Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2025
Rethinking the pathogenicity of intragenic DMD duplications detected by carrier screening: High prevalence of nontandem duplications revealed by long-read sequencing.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ding Qiliang, Balan Jagadheshwar, Vidal-Folch Noemi, Pickart Angela M, Sun Guangchao, Walsh Jesse R, Majumdar Ramanath, Klee Eric W, Murphy Stephen J, Oglesbee Devin, Rowsey Ross A, Hasadsri Linda
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The pathogenicity of intragenic duplications depends on their structural configuration. Tandem duplications often disrupt reading frames and cause gene loss of function, whereas interspersed (nontandem) duplications are largely benign. When the configuration cannot be determined, current guidelines presume a tandem structure, leading to some laboratories automatically classifying such variants as likely pathogenic or pathogenic. This study evaluates the validity of this presumption for DMD, in patients with and without clinical indications of dystrophinopathy.
METHODS: We performed high-coverage long-read genome sequencing on 15 patients with intragenic DMD duplications. A total of 4 patients had clinically indicated dystrophinopathy testing, whereas in the remaining 11 patients, the duplications were detected without clear indications of dystrophinopathy (eg, through carrier screening).
RESULTS: All 4 patients with clinical indications had tandem duplications. In contrast, 64% (7/11) of the cases without such indications had interspersed duplications, with 4 subsequently reclassified as likely benign, 2 (likely) pathogenic, and 1 uncertain. These duplications were often complex, involving coduplications or codeletions with other regions.
CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge the presumption that intragenic DMD duplications are predominantly in tandem. This highlights the need for a cautious variant interpretation approach, particularly in carrier screening and other settings in which variants are identified without indications of dystrophinopathy.
METHODS: We performed high-coverage long-read genome sequencing on 15 patients with intragenic DMD duplications. A total of 4 patients had clinically indicated dystrophinopathy testing, whereas in the remaining 11 patients, the duplications were detected without clear indications of dystrophinopathy (eg, through carrier screening).
RESULTS: All 4 patients with clinical indications had tandem duplications. In contrast, 64% (7/11) of the cases without such indications had interspersed duplications, with 4 subsequently reclassified as likely benign, 2 (likely) pathogenic, and 1 uncertain. These duplications were often complex, involving coduplications or codeletions with other regions.
CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge the presumption that intragenic DMD duplications are predominantly in tandem. This highlights the need for a cautious variant interpretation approach, particularly in carrier screening and other settings in which variants are identified without indications of dystrophinopathy.