4.5 Review

Lessons learned from gene identification studies in Mendelian epilepsy disorders

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 961-967

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.251

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eurocores program EuroEPINOMICS of the European Science Foundation [G.A.136.11.N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies are now routinely used for gene identification in Mendelian disorders. Setting up cost-efficient NGS projects and managing the large amount of variants remains, however, a challenging job. Here we provide insights in the decision-making processes before and after the use of NGS in gene identification studies. Genetic factors are thought to have a role in similar to 70% of all epilepsies, and a variety of inheritance patterns have been described for seizure-associated gene defects. We therefore chose epilepsy as disease model and selected 35 NGS studies that focused on patients with a Mendelian epilepsy disorder. The strategies used for gene identification and their respective outcomes were reviewed. High-throughput NGS strategies have led to the identification of several new epilepsy-causing genes, enlarging our knowledge on both known and novel pathomechanisms. NGS findings have furthermore extended the awareness of phenotypical and genetic heterogeneity. By discussing recent studies we illustrate: (I) the power of NGS for gene identification in Mendelian disorders, (II) the accelerating pace in which this field evolves, and (III) the considerations that have to be made when performing NGS studies. Nonetheless, the enormous rise in gene discovery over the last decade, many patients and families included in gene identification studies still remain without a molecular diagnosis; hence, further genetic research is warranted. On the basis of successful NGS studies in epilepsy, we discuss general approaches to guide human geneticists and clinicians in setting up cost-efficient gene identification NGS studies.

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