4.6 Article

Application of Whole Exome and Targeted Panel Sequencing in the Clinical Molecular Diagnosis of 319 Chinese Families with Inherited Retinal Dystrophy and Comparison Study

期刊

GENES
卷 9, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes9070360

关键词

inherited retinal dystrophy; whole exome sequencing; targeted panel sequencing; molecular diagnosis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81770966, 81470666, 81271046]
  2. Clinical Key Project of Peking University Third Hospital [BYSY2014004]
  3. Seeding Grant for Medicine and Life Sciences of Peking University [2014-MB-20]
  4. Joint program of Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation
  5. Beijing educational committee (key project) [KZ201510025025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inherited retinal dystrophies (IRDs) are a group of clinically and genetically heterogeneous diseases involving more than 280 genes and no less than 20 different clinical phenotypes. In this study, our aims were to identify the disease-causing gene variants of 319 Chinese patients with IRD, and compare the pros and cons of targeted panel sequencing and whole exome sequencing (WES). Patients were assigned for analysis with a hereditary eye disease enrichment panel (HEDEP) or WES examination based on time of recruitment. This HEDEP was able to capture 441 hereditary eye disease genes, which included 291 genes related to IRD. As RPGR ORF15 was difficult to capture, all samples were subjected to Sanger sequencing for this region. Among the 163 disease-causing variants identified in this study, 73 had been previously reported, and the other 90 were novel. Genes most commonly implicated in different inheritances of IRDs in this cohort were presented. HEDEP and WES achieved diagnostic yield with 41.2% and 33.0%, respectively. In addition, nine patients were found to carry pathogenic mutations in the RPGR ORF15 region with Sanger sequencing. Our study demonstrates that HEDEP can be used as a first-tier test for patients with IRDs.

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