4.5 Article

Unexpected Inheritance Patterns in a Large Cohort of Patients with a Suspected Ciliopathy

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 2023, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1155/2023/2564200

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ciliopathies, rare genetic disorders caused by dysfunction of cilia, often inherit autosomal recessively, but exceptions like UPD or de novo variants exist. In this study, 940 individuals with suspected ciliopathy were examined and a high prevalence of UPD and de novo variants was found in a large cohort of ciliopathies, emphasizing the importance of identifying such rare genetic events for genetic counseling.
Ciliopathies are rare genetic disorders caused by dysfunction of the primary or motile cilia. Their mode of inheritance is mostly autosomal recessive with biallelic pathogenic variants inherited from the parents. However, exceptions exist such as uniparental disomy (UPD) or the appearance of a de novo pathogenic variant in trans of an inherited pathogenic variant. These two genetic mechanisms are expected to be extremely rare, and few data are available in the literature, especially regarding ciliopathies. In this study, we investigated 940 individuals (812 families) with a suspected ciliopathy by Sanger sequencing, high-throughput sequencing and/or SNP array analysis and performed a literature review of UPD and de novo variants in ciliopathies. In a large cohort of 623 individuals (511 families) with a molecular diagnosis of ciliopathy (mainly Bardet-Biedl syndrome and Alstrom syndrome), we identified five UPD, revealing an inherited pathogenic variant and five pathogenic variants of de novo appearance (in trans of another pathogenic variant). Moreover, from these ten cases, we reported 15 different pathogenic variants of which five are novel. We demonstrated a relatively high prevalence of UPD and de novo variants in a large cohort of ciliopathies and highlighted the importance of identifying such rare genetic events, especially for genetic counseling.

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