Search

Purpose: To analyze the genetic test results of probands referred to eyeGENE with a diagnosis of hereditary maculopathy., Methods: Patients with Best macular dystrophy (BMD), Doyne honeycomb retinal dystrophy (DHRD), Sorsby fundus dystrophy (SFD), or late-onset retinal degeneration (LORD) were screened for mutations in BEST1, EFEMP1, TIMP3, and CTRP5, respectively. Patients with pattern dystrophy (PD) were screened for mutations in PRPH2, BEST1, ELOVL4, CTRP5, and ABCA4; patients with cone-rod dystrophy (CRD) were screened for mutations in CRX, ABCA4, PRPH2, ELOVL4, and the c.2513G>A p.Arg838His variant in GUCY2D. Mutation analysis was performed by dideoxy sequencing. Impact of novel variants was evaluated using the computational tool PolyPhen., Results: Among the 213 unrelated patients, 38 had BMD, 26 DHRD, 74 PD, 8 SFD, 6 LORD, and 54 CRD; six had both PD and BMD, and one had no specific clinical diagnosis. BEST1 variants were identified in 25 BMD patients, five with novel variants of unknown significance (VUS). Among the five patients with VUS, one was diagnosed with both BMD and PD. A novel EFEMP1 variant was identified in one DHRD patient. TIMP3 novel variants were found in two SFD patients, PRPH2 variants in 14 PD patients, ABCA4 variants in four PD patients, and p.Arg838His GUCY2D mutation in six patients diagnosed with dominant CRD; one patient additionally had a CRX VUS. ABCA4 mutations were identified in 15 patients with recessive CRD., Conclusions: Of the 213 samples, 55 patients (26%) had known causative mutations, and 13 (6%) patients had a VUS that was possibly pathogenic. Overall, selective screening for mutations in BEST1, PRPH2, and ABCA4 would likely yield the highest success rate in identifying the genetic basis for macular dystrophy phenotypes. Because of the overlap in phenotypes between BMD and PD, it would be beneficial to screen genes associated with both diseases., (Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.)

Purpose: To screen samples from patients with presumed autosomal dominant retinitis pigmentosa (adRP) for mutations in 12 disease genes as a contribution to the research and treatment goals of the National Ophthalmic Disease Genotyping and Phenotyping Network (eyeGENE)., Methods: DNA samples were obtained from eyeGENE. A total of 170 probands with an intake diagnosis of adRP were tested through enrollment in eyeGENE. The 10 most common genes causing adRP (IMPDH1, KLHL7, NR2E3, PRPF3/RP18, PRPF31/RP11, PRPF8/RP13, PRPH2/RDS, RHO, RP1, and TOPORS) were chosen for PCR-based dideoxy sequencing, along with the two X-linked RP genes, RPGR and RP2. RHO, PRPH2, PRPF31, RPGR, and RP2 were completely sequenced, while only mutation hotspots in the other genes were analyzed., Results: Disease-causing mutations were identified in 52% of the probands. The frequencies of disease-causing mutations in the 12 genes were consistent with previous studies., Conclusions: The Laboratory for Molecular Diagnosis of Inherited Eye Disease at the University of Texas in Houston has thus far received DNA samples from 170 families with a diagnosis of adRP from the eyeGENE Network. Disease-causing mutations in autosomal genes were identified in 48% (81/170) of these families while mutations in X-linked genes accounted for an additional 4% (7/170). Of the 55 distinct mutations detected, 19 (33%) have not been previously reported. All diagnostic results were returned by eyeGENE to participating patients via their referring clinician. These genotyped samples along with their corresponding phenotypic information are also available to researchers who may request access to them for further study of these ophthalmic disorders. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00378742.).

Despite increasing success in determining genetic diagnosis for patients with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs), mutations in about 30% of the IRD cases remain unclear or unsettled after targeted gene panel or whole exome sequencing. In this study, we aimed to investigate the contributions of structural variants (SVs) to settling the molecular diagnosis of IRD with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). A cohort of 755 IRD patients whose pathogenic mutations remain undefined were subjected to WGS. Four SV calling algorithms including include MANTA, DELLY, LUMPY and CNVnator were used to detect SVs throughout the genome. All SVs identified by any one of these four algorithms were included for further analysis. AnnotSV was used to annotate these SVs. SVs that overlap with known IRD-associated genes were examined with sequencing coverage, junction reads and discordant read pairs. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) followed by Sanger sequencing was used to further confirm the SVs and identify the breakpoints. Segregation of the candidate pathogenic alleles with the disease was performed when possible. A total of 16 candidate pathogenic SVs were identified in 16 families, including deletions and inversions, representing 2.1% of patients with previously unsolved IRDs. Autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive and X-linked inheritance of disease-causing SVs were observed in 12 different genes. Among these, SVs in CLN3, EYS and PRPF31 were found in multiple families. Our study suggests that the contribution of SVs detected by short-read WGS is about 0.25% of our IRD patient cohort and is significantly lower than that of single nucleotide changes and small insertions and deletions.