4.5 Article

Reevaluation of genetic variants previously associated with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy integrating population-based cohorts and proteomics data

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 96, 期 6, 页码 506-514

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.13621

关键词

arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy; ARVC disease-modifier; cardiac proteomics; disease-modifier; genetic variants; gnomAD; monogenic

资金

  1. Danish Council for independent Research [DFF-4092-00045, DFF-6110-00166]
  2. Novo Nordisk Foundation [NNF18OC0052844]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is one of the most common causes of sudden cardiac death in young people. Patients diagnosed with ARVC may experience increased likelihood of development of anxiety and depression, emphasizing the need for accurate diagnosis. To assist future genetic diagnosis and avoidance of misdiagnosis, we evaluated the reported monogenic disease-causing variants in ARVD/C Genetic Variants Database, Human Gene Mutation Database, and ClinVar. Within the aforementioned databases, 630 monogenic disease-causing variants from 18 genes were identified. In the genome Aggregation Database, 226 of these were identified; 68 of which were found at greater than expected prevalence. Furthermore, 37/226 genetic variants were identified amongst the 409 000 UK biobank participants, 23 were not associated with ARVC. Among the 14 remaining variants, 13 were previously found with greater than expected prevalence for a monogenic variant. Nevertheless, they were associated with serious cardiac phenotypes, suggesting that these 13 variants may be disease-modifiers of ARVC, rather than monogenic disease-causing. In summary, more than 10% of variants previously reported to cause ARVC were found unlikely to be associated with highly penetrant monogenic forms of ARVC. Notably, all variants in OBSCN and MYBPC3 were found, making these unlikely to be monogenic causes of ARVC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据