Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
Copy-number variation contributes 9% of pathogenicity in the inherited retinal degenerations.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка 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.
Zampaglione Erin, Kinde Benyam, Place Emily M, Navarro-Gomez Daniel, Maher Matthew, Jamshidi Farzad, Nassiri Sherwin, Mazzone J Alex, Finn Caitlin, Schlegel Dana, Comander Jason, Pierce Eric A, Bujakowska Kinga M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Current sequencing strategies can genetically solve 55-60% of inherited retinal degeneration (IRD) cases, despite recent progress in sequencing. This can partially be attributed to elusive pathogenic variants (PVs) in known IRD genes, including copy-number variations (CNVs), which have been shown as major contributors to unsolved IRD cases.
METHODS: Five hundred IRD patients were analyzed with targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). The NGS data were used to detect CNVs with ExomeDepth and gCNV and the results were compared with CNV detection with a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Likely causal CNV predictions were validated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).
RESULTS: Likely disease-causing single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small indels were found in 55.6% of subjects. PVs in USH2A (11.6%), RPGR (4%), and EYS (4%) were the most common. Likely causal CNVs were found in an additional 8.8% of patients. Of the three CNV detection methods, gCNV showed the highest accuracy. Approximately 30% of unsolved subjects had a single likely PV in a recessive IRD gene.
CONCLUSION: CNV detection using NGS-based algorithms is a reliable method that greatly increases the genetic diagnostic rate of IRDs. Experimentally validating CNVs helps estimate the rate at which IRDs might be solved by a CNV plus a more elusive variant.
METHODS: Five hundred IRD patients were analyzed with targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). The NGS data were used to detect CNVs with ExomeDepth and gCNV and the results were compared with CNV detection with a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Likely causal CNV predictions were validated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).
RESULTS: Likely disease-causing single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small indels were found in 55.6% of subjects. PVs in USH2A (11.6%), RPGR (4%), and EYS (4%) were the most common. Likely causal CNVs were found in an additional 8.8% of patients. Of the three CNV detection methods, gCNV showed the highest accuracy. Approximately 30% of unsolved subjects had a single likely PV in a recessive IRD gene.
CONCLUSION: CNV detection using NGS-based algorithms is a reliable method that greatly increases the genetic diagnostic rate of IRDs. Experimentally validating CNVs helps estimate the rate at which IRDs might be solved by a CNV plus a more elusive variant.