4.5 Article

EMQN best practice guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of osteogenesis imperfecta

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 11-19

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.141

Keywords

EMQN; best practice; osteogenesis imperfecta; type I (pro)collagen; diagnosis; reporting

Funding

  1. European Molecular Genetics Quality Network

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) comprises a group of inherited disorders characterized by bone fragility and increased susceptibility to fractures. Historically, the laboratory confirmation of the diagnosis OI rested on cultured dermal fibroblasts to identify decreased or abnormal production of abnormal type I (pro) collagen molecules, measured by gel electrophoresis. With the discovery of COL1A1 and COL1A2 gene variants as a cause of OI, sequence analysis of these genes was added to the diagnostic process. Nowadays, OI is known to be genetically heterogeneous. About 90% of individuals with OI are heterozygous for causative variants in the COL1A1 and COL1A2 genes. The majority of remaining affected individuals have recessively inherited forms of OI with the causative variants in the more recently discovered genes CRTAP, FKBP10, LEPRE1, PLOD2, PPIB, SERPINF1, SERPINH1 and SP7, or in other yet undiscovered genes. These advances in the molecular genetic diagnosis of OI prompted us to develop new guidelines for molecular testing and reporting of results in which we take into account that testing is also used to 'exclude' OI when there is suspicion of non-accidental injury. Diagnostic flow, methods and reporting scenarios were discussed during an international workshop with 17 clinicians and scientists from 11 countries and converged in these best practice guidelines for the laboratory diagnosis of OI. European Journal of Human Genetics (2012) 20, 11-19; doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2011.141; published online 10 August 2011

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available