4.6 Article

Copy-number variation contributes 9% of pathogenicity in the inherited retinal degenerations

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 6, Pages 1079-1087

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-020-0759-8

Keywords

inherited retinal degeneration; retinitis pigmentosa; rod-cone dystrophy; cone-rod dystrophy; copy-number variation

Funding

  1. National Eye Institute [R01EY012910, R01EY026904, P30EY014104]
  2. Foundation Fighting Blindness [EGI-GE-1218-0753-UCSD]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available