3.8 Article

Exome sequencing can misread high variant allele fraction of somatic variants in UBA1 as hemizygous in VEXAS syndrome: a case report

Journal

BMC RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s41927-022-00281-z

Keywords

VEXAS syndrome; Variant allele frequency; X-Linked spinal muscular atrophy 2; Case report

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This case demonstrates the diagnostic challenge posed by high variant allele frequency detected through exome sequencing for VEXAS syndrome. Sequencing different tissue samples was necessary to confirm the mosaic state of the variant.
Background VEXAS syndrome (vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic syndrome) is a recently described syndrome caused by a somatic missense variant at the methionine-41 (p.(Met41)) position in the ubiquitin-like modifier activating enzyme 1 (UBA1) in Xp11.3. Germline pathogenic variants in UBA1 are associated with a distinct phenotype: a syndrome with severe neurologic features associated with loss of anterior horn cells and infantile death denominated X-Linked Spinal Muscular Atrophy 2 (SMAX2) (OMIM 301,830). Case presentation We report a male individual with the phenotype of VEXAS syndrome that was initially identified through exome sequencing (ES) as having a hemizygous germline variant in UBA1 due to high variant allele frequency (VAF). Research Sanger sequencing was able to confirm the absence of the p.(Met41Val) variant in a skin biopsy and in gastric mucosa tissue sample confirming the variant happened as a postzygotic event. Conclusions The present case exemplifies the diagnostic challenge that was imposed by the high VAF detected by ES that failed to correctly demonstrate that the variant was in a mosaic state. Sequencing of different tissues should be considered when there is conflict between the UBA1 variant status and the clinical findings.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available