4.5 Article

mRNA-based detection of rare CFTR mutations improves genetic diagnosis of cystic fibrosis in populations with high genetic heterogeneity

期刊

CLINICAL GENETICS
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 476-481

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cge.12802

关键词

CF diagnosis; genotyping; intronic mutations; rare mutations; splicing

资金

  1. FCT centre [UID/MULTI/04046/2013]
  2. CFF-Cystic Fibrosis Foundation USA [AMARAL15XX0, AMARAL15XX1-'RNA Life']
  3. Gilead GENESE-Portugal Programme [PGG/008/2015]
  4. PhD fellowship from FCT, Portugal [SFRH/BD/87478/2012]
  5. Gilead Genese
  6. Vertex Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Even with advent of next generation sequencing complete sequencing of large disease-associated genes and intronic regions is economically not feasible. This is the case of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR), the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis (CF). Yet, to confirm a CF diagnosis, proof of CFTR dysfunction needs to be obtained, namely by the identification of two disease-causing mutations. Moreover, with the advent of mutation-based therapies, genotyping is an essential tool for CF disease management. There is, however, still an unmet need to genotype CF patients by fast, comprehensive and cost-effective approaches, especially in populations with high genetic heterogeneity (and low p.F508del incidence), where CF is now emerging with new diagnosis dilemmas (Brazil, Asia, etc). Herein, we report an innovative mRNA-based approach to identify CFTR mutations in the complete coding and intronic regions. We applied this protocol to genotype individuals with a suspicion of CF and only one or no CFTR mutations identified by routine methods. It successfully detected multiple intronic mutations unlikely to be detected by CFTR exon sequencing. We conclude that this is a rapid, robust and inexpensive method to detect any CFTR coding/intronic mutation (including rare ones) that can be easily used either as primary approach or after routine DNA analysis.

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