4.1 Article

Targeted 'Next-Generation' sequencing in anophthalmia and microphthalmia patients confirms SOX2, OTX2 and FOXE3 mutations

期刊

BMC MEDICAL GENETICS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2350-12-172

关键词

anophthalmia; microphthalmia; next-generation sequencing; SOX2; OTX2; FOXE3

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health, National Institutes of Health [K08HD053476-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Anophthalmia/microphthalmia (A/M) is caused by mutations in several different transcription factors, but mutations in each causative gene are relatively rare, emphasizing the need for a testing approach that screens multiple genes simultaneously. We used next-generation sequencing to screen 15 A/M patients for mutations in 9 pathogenic genes to evaluate this technology for screening in A/M. Methods: We used a pooled sequencing design, together with custom single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) calling software. We verified predicted sequence alterations using Sanger sequencing. Results: We verified three mutations - c.542delC in SOX2, resulting in p.Pro181Argfs*22, p.Glu105X in OTX2 and p. Cys240X in FOXE3. We found several novel sequence alterations and SNPs that were likely to be non-pathogenic p.Glu42Lys in CRYBA4, p.Val201Met in FOXE3 and p.Asp291Asn in VSX2. Our analysis methodology gave one false positive result comprising a mutation in PAX6 (c.1268A > T, predicting p.X423LeuextX*15) that was not verified by Sanger sequencing. We also failed to detect one 20 base pair (bp) deletion and one 3 bp duplication in SOX2. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated the power of next-generation sequencing with pooled sample groups for the rapid screening of candidate genes for A/M as we were correctly able to identify disease-causing mutations. However, next-generation sequencing was less useful for small, intragenic deletions and duplications. We did not find mutations in 10/15 patients and conclude that there is a need for further gene discovery in A/M.

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

4.1
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