4.6 Article

Somatic Variants in the Human Lens Epithelium: A Preliminary Assessment

期刊

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
卷 57, 期 10, 页码 4063-4075

出版社

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-19726

关键词

somatic mutation; cataract risk factors; genomics

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute Cancer Center [P30 CA91842]
  2. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) from the National Center for Research Resources, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1 TR000448]
  3. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research
  4. NIH grant National Eye Institute [R01 EY09852, P30 EY02687]
  5. Research to Prevent Blindness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE. We hypothesize that somatic mutations accumulate in cells of the human lens and may contribute to the development of cortical or posterior sub-capsular cataracts. Here, we used a Next-generation sequencing (NGS) strategy to screen for low-allelic frequency variants in DNA extracted from human lens epithelial samples. METHODS. Next-Generation sequencing of 151 cancer-related genes (WUCaMP2 panel) was performed on DNA extracted from post-mortem or surgical specimens obtained from 24 individuals. Usually, pairwise comparisons were made between two or more ocular samples from the same individual, allowing putative somatic variants detected in lens samples to be differentiated from germline variants. RESULTS. Use of a targeted hybridization approach enabled high sequence coverage (> 1000-fold) of the WUCaMP2 genes. In addition to high-frequency variants (corresponding to homozygous or heterozygous SNPs and Indels), somatic variants with allelic frequencies of 14% were detected in the lens epithelial samples. The presence of one such variant, a T > C point substitution at position 32907082 in BRCA2, was verified subsequently using droplet digital PCR. CONCLUSIONS. Low-allelic fraction variants are present in the human lens epithelium, at frequencies consistent with the presence of millimeter-sized clones.

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

4.6
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