4.7 Article

A Novel Triplet-Primed PCR Assay to Detect the Full Range of Trinucleotide CAG Repeats in the Huntingtin Gene (HTT)

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22041689

关键词

Huntington disease; HTT-CAG repeats; novel diagnostic test; TP-PCR

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [RF-2016-02364123]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrates that the AmplideX PCR/CE HTT Kit technology can accurately detect the expansion of CAG repeat sequences in the HTT gene, including large and very large expansions, thereby improving the reliability and accuracy of genetic testing.
The expanded CAG repeat number in HTT gene causes Huntington disease (HD), which is a severe, dominant neurodegenerative illness. The accurate determination of the expanded allele size is crucial to confirm the genetic status in symptomatic and presymptomatic at-risk subjects and avoid genetic polymorphism-related false-negative diagnoses. Precise CAG repeat number determination is critical to discriminate the cutoff between unexpanded and intermediate mutable alleles (IAs, 27-35 CAG) as well as between IAs and pathological, low-penetrance alleles (i.e., 36-39 CAG repeats), and it is also critical to detect large repeat expansions causing pediatric HD variants. We analyzed the HTT-CAG repeat number of 14 DNA reference materials and of a DNA collection of 43 additional samples carrying unexpanded, IAs, low and complete penetrance alleles, including large (>60 repeats) and very large (>100 repeats) expansions using a novel triplet-primed PCR-based assay, the AmplideX PCR/CE HTT Kit. The results demonstrate that the method accurately genotypes both normal and expanded HTT-CAG repeat numbers and reveals previously undisclosed and very large CAG expansions >200 repeats. We also show that this technique can improve genetic test reliability and accuracy by detecting CAG expansions in samples with sequence variations within or adjacent to the repeat tract that cause allele drop-outs or inaccuracies using other PCR methods.

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

4.7
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