4.7 Article

Usefulness and Limitations of Multiple Ligation-Dependent Probe Amplification in Antithrombin Deficiency

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24055023

关键词

antithrombin deficiency; multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification; structural variants; genetic variants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is effective in identifying genetic structural variants in SERPINC1 in 5% of antithrombin deficiency (ATD) cases. However, MLPA has limitations in detecting intronic structural variants, and can produce imprecise and false-positive results for genetic defects affecting MLPA probes. Validation of MLPA results is encouraged based on our study.
Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) identifies genetic structural variants in SERPINC1 in 5% of cases with antithrombin deficiency (ATD), the most severe congenital thrombophilia. Our aim was to unravel the utility and limitations of MLPA in a large cohort of unrelated patients with ATD (N = 341). MLPA identified 22 structural variants (SVs) causing ATD (6.5%). MLPA did not detect SVs affecting introns (four cases), and the diagnosis was inaccurate in two cases according to long-range PCR or nanopore sequencing. MLPA was used to detect possible hidden SVs in 61 cases with type I deficiency with single nucleotide variations (SNVs) or small insertion/deletion (INDEL). One case had a false deletion of exon 7, as the 29-bp deletion affected an MLPA probe. We evaluated 32 variants affecting MLPA probes: 27 SNVs and 5 small INDELs. In three cases, MLPA gave false-positive results, all diagnosed as deletions of the affected exon: a small INDEL complex, and two SNVs affecting MLPA probes. Our study confirms the utility of MLPA to detect SVs in ATD, but also shows some limitations in detecting intronic SVs. MLPA renders imprecise and false-positive results for genetic defects which affect MLPA probes. Our results encourage the validation of MLPA results.

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