BACKGROUND: At the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, on detailed questioning, approximately 10% of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) gave no family history of ADPKD. There are several explanations for this observation, including occurrence of a de novo pathogenic sequence variant or extreme phenotypic variability. To confirm de novo sequence variants, we have undertaken clinical and genetic screening of affected offspring and their parents. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 24 patients with a well-documented ADPKD phenotype and no family history of polycystic kidney disease (PKD) and both parents of each patient. OUTCOME: Presence or absence of PKD1 or PKD2 pathogenic sequence variants in parents of affected offspring. MEASUREMENTS: Abdominal ultrasound of affected offspring and their parents for ADPKD diagnosis. Parentage testing by genotyping. Complete screening of PKD1 and PKD2 genes by using genomic DNA from affected offspring; analysis of genomic DNA from both parents to confirm the absence or presence of all DNA variants found. RESULTS: A positive diagnosis of ADPKD by means of ultrasound or genetic screening was made in 1 parent of 4 patients (17%). No PKD1 or PKD2 pathogenic sequence variants were identified in 10 patients (42%), whereas possible pathological DNA variants were identified in 4 patients (17%) and 1 of their respective parents. Parentage was confirmed in the remaining 6 patients (25%), and de novo sequence variants were documented. LIMITATIONS: Size of patient group. No direct examination of RNA. CONCLUSION: Causes other than de novo pathogenic sequence variants may explain the negative family history of ADPKD in certain families.
BACKGROUND: At the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, on detailed questioning, approximately 10% of patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) gave no family history of ADPKD. There are several explanations for this observation, including occurrence of a de novo pathogenic sequence variant or extreme phenotypic variability. To confirm de novo sequence variants, we have undertaken clinical and genetic screening of affected offspring and their parents. STUDY DESIGN: Case series. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 24 patients with a well-documented ADPKD phenotype and no family history of polycystic kidney disease (PKD) and both parents of each patient. OUTCOME: Presence or absence of PKD1 or PKD2 pathogenic sequence variants in parents of affected offspring. MEASUREMENTS: Abdominal ultrasound of affected offspring and their parents for ADPKD diagnosis. Parentage testing by genotyping. Complete screening of PKD1 and PKD2 genes by using genomic DNA from affected offspring; analysis of genomic DNA from both parents to confirm the absence or presence of all DNA variants found. RESULTS: A positive diagnosis of ADPKD by means of ultrasound or genetic screening was made in 1 parent of 4 patients (17%). No PKD1 or PKD2 pathogenic sequence variants were identified in 10 patients (42%), whereas possible pathological DNA variants were identified in 4 patients (17%) and 1 of their respective parents. Parentage was confirmed in the remaining 6 patients (25%), and de novo sequence variants were documented. LIMITATIONS: Size of patient group. No direct examination of RNA. CONCLUSION: Causes other than de novo pathogenic sequence variants may explain the negative family history of ADPKD in certain families.
Authors: T Watnick; B Phakdeekitcharoen; A Johnson; M Gandolph; M Wang; G Briefel; K W Klinger; W Kimberling; P Gabow; G G Germino Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 1999-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: K Tsuchiya; M Komeda; M Takahashi; N Yamashita; M Cigira; T Suzuki; K Suzuki; H Nihei; T Mochizuki Journal: Mutat Res Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 2.433
Authors: Pamela R Fain; Kimberly K McFann; Matthew R G Taylor; Maryellyn Tison; Ann M Johnson; Berenice Reed; Robert W Schrier Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Andrew D Paterson; Riccardo Magistroni; Ning He; Kairong Wang; Ann Johnson; Pamela R Fain; Elizabeth Dicks; Patrick Parfrey; Peter St George-Hyslop; York Pei Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-01-26 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Sandro Rossetti; Sarah Burton; Lana Strmecki; Gregory R Pond; Jośe L San Millán; Klaus Zerres; T Martin Barratt; Seza Ozen; Vicente E Torres; Erik J Bergstralh; Christopher G Winearls; Peter C Harris Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Sandro Rossetti; Dominique Chauveau; Denise Walker; Anand Saggar-Malik; Christopher G Winearls; Vicente E Torres; Peter C Harris Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Berenice Y Reed; Kim McFann; Mir R Bekheirnia; M Reza Bekheirnia; Niloofar Nobakhthaghighi; Niloofar Nobkhthaghighi; Amirali Masoumi; Ann M Johnson; Alireza A Shamshirsaz; Alireza Abdollah Shamshiraz; Catherine L Kelleher; Robert W Schrier Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: William E Braun; Kaleab Z Abebe; Godela Brosnahan; Charity G Patterson; Arlene B Chapman; Peter C Harris; Marie C Hogan; Ronald D Perrone; Vicente E Torres; Dana C Miskulin; Theodore I Steinman; Franz T Winklhofer; Frederic F Rahbari-Oskoui; Peter G Czarnecki; Kyongtae T Bae; Jared J Grantham; Michael F Flessner; Robert W Schrier Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2017-12-02 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Arlene B Chapman; Olivier Devuyst; Kai-Uwe Eckardt; Ron T Gansevoort; Tess Harris; Shigeo Horie; Bertram L Kasiske; Dwight Odland; York Pei; Ronald D Perrone; Yves Pirson; Robert W Schrier; Roser Torra; Vicente E Torres; Terry Watnick; David C Wheeler Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2015-03-18 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Wybrich R Cnossen; René H M te Morsche; Alexander Hoischen; Christian Gilissen; Hanka Venselaar; Soufi Mehdi; Carsten Bergmann; Monique Losekoot; Martijn H Breuning; Dorien J M Peters; Joris A Veltman; Joost P H Drenth Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.246