International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
Bayesian Population-Based Prevalence Estimation of KCNV2-Associated Retinopathy: A Comparative Analysis of Disease-Associated Variant Frequencies in Russian and Global Populations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Rozhkova Anastasiia V, Rutkovskaya Ekaterina A, Kadyshev Vitaly V, Esibov Anton A, Alsalloum Almaqdad, Kuznetsova Ekaterina S, Krupinova Julia A, Mityaeva Olga N, Shefer Kristina K, Boiko Ernest V, Sagaydak Olesya V, Doroshchuk Natalya A, Makarova Maria V, Woroncow Mary, Bogdanov Viktor P, Volchkov Pavel Y
Аннотация
Cone dystrophy with supernormal rod responses (CDSRR) is a rare autosomal recessive hereditary retinal dystrophy caused by biallelic KCNV2 variants. Accurate prevalence data remain limited because current estimates rely on clinically ascertained cases. This study aimed to estimate its population prevalence by integrating curated variant evidence and large-scale population genomics resources. The key methodological feature of this study is a multi-tiered pathogenicity framework combined with estimation of a biologically plausible prevalence range: Known pathogenic variants define conservative estimates, whereas probably pathogenic variants and strong variants of uncertain significance define broader estimates. Allele frequencies were analyzed in 807,162 individuals from the gnomAD database and 144,127 Russian genomes from GDB and EvogenDB. A Bayesian framework was applied to calculate disease prevalence from aggregated carrier frequencies across predefined variant tiers. Conservative estimates based on known pathogenic variants, were 1 in 343,926 globally and 1 in 1,911,347 in Russia. Including broader tiers increased estimates to 1 in 14,620 and 1 in 32,764, respectively. Compared to previous clinically ascertained prevalence of 1 in 865,000, these estimates define a wider biologically plausible prevalence range and are consistent with possible clinical underascertainment. This tier-based approach accounts for uncertainty in variant classification when estimating rare disease prevalence.