BACKGROUND: In 2007, clinical trials began for gene-replacement therapy for RPE65-associated Leber congenital amaurosis. To enroll, subjects must have both disease-causing RPE65 alleles identified. Determining which patients have true disease-causing mutations requires a multistep approach. METHODS: This study is a retrospective case series using the estimate of pathogenic probability (EPP) algorithm and genotyping of family members to establish phase. RESULTS: Five probands and their families were studied. Patient 1 had genetic testing elsewhere and was reported to have 2 disease-causing AIPL1 mutations. The family received incorrect prenatal counseling based on this result. We found both variations to be benign ethnic polymorphisms (EPP = 0). Case 2 had possible disease-causing mutations in RPE65, RPGRIP1, and CRB1; however, screening of family members revealed that only CRB1 variations were disease causing and the RPE65 change was a polymorphism found in 11% of African Americans. Case 3 had a diagnosis of CRB1-associated Leber congenital amaurosis, but this mutation had an EPP = 0; a true homozygous disease-causing mutation was later found in RDH12. Patient 4 had 3 mutations found in RPE65, but only 2 were disease causing. Patient 5 had a homozygous mutation in RPE65. Only Patients 4 and 5 would be eligible for clinical trials of RPE65 gene replacement. CONCLUSIONS: To be eligible for participation in current RPE65 gene therapy trials, patients' DNA must contain 2 correctly segregating alleles with an EPP = 2 or 3. Interpretation of DNA variants is complex; genetic misdiagnosis may lead to ineffective treatment in some patients and lack of treatment in others.
BACKGROUND: In 2007, clinical trials began for gene-replacement therapy for RPE65-associated Leber congenital amaurosis. To enroll, subjects must have both disease-causing RPE65 alleles identified. Determining which patients have true disease-causing mutations requires a multistep approach. METHODS: This study is a retrospective case series using the estimate of pathogenic probability (EPP) algorithm and genotyping of family members to establish phase. RESULTS: Five probands and their families were studied. Patient 1 had genetic testing elsewhere and was reported to have 2 disease-causing AIPL1 mutations. The family received incorrect prenatal counseling based on this result. We found both variations to be benign ethnic polymorphisms (EPP = 0). Case 2 had possible disease-causing mutations in RPE65, RPGRIP1, and CRB1; however, screening of family members revealed that only CRB1 variations were disease causing and the RPE65 change was a polymorphism found in 11% of African Americans. Case 3 had a diagnosis of CRB1-associated Leber congenital amaurosis, but this mutation had an EPP = 0; a true homozygous disease-causing mutation was later found in RDH12. Patient 4 had 3 mutations found in RPE65, but only 2 were disease causing. Patient 5 had a homozygous mutation in RPE65. Only Patients 4 and 5 would be eligible for clinical trials of RPE65 gene replacement. CONCLUSIONS: To be eligible for participation in current RPE65 gene therapy trials, patients' DNA must contain 2 correctly segregating alleles with an EPP = 2 or 3. Interpretation of DNA variants is complex; genetic misdiagnosis may lead to ineffective treatment in some patients and lack of treatment in others.
Authors: G M Acland; G D Aguirre; J Ray; Q Zhang; T S Aleman; A V Cideciyan; S E Pearce-Kelling; V Anand; Y Zeng; A M Maguire; S G Jacobson; W W Hauswirth; J Bennett Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: M M Sohocki; S J Bowne; L S Sullivan; S Blackshaw; C L Cepko; A M Payne; S S Bhattacharya; S Khaliq; S Qasim Mehdi; D G Birch; W R Harrison; F F Elder; J R Heckenlively; S P Daiger Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Sara J Bowne; Lori S Sullivan; Sarah E Mortimer; Lizbeth Hedstrom; Jingya Zhu; Catherine J Spellicy; Anisa I Gire; Dianna Hughbanks-Wheaton; David G Birch; Richard A Lewis; John R Heckenlively; Stephen P Daiger Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: James W B Bainbridge; Alexander J Smith; Susie S Barker; Scott Robbie; Robert Henderson; Kamaljit Balaggan; Ananth Viswanathan; Graham E Holder; Andrew Stockman; Nick Tyler; Simon Petersen-Jones; Shomi S Bhattacharya; Adrian J Thrasher; Fred W Fitzke; Barrie J Carter; Gary S Rubin; Anthony T Moore; Robin R Ali Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-04-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Albert M Maguire; Francesca Simonelli; Eric A Pierce; Edward N Pugh; Federico Mingozzi; Jeannette Bennicelli; Sandro Banfi; Kathleen A Marshall; Francesco Testa; Enrico M Surace; Settimio Rossi; Arkady Lyubarsky; Valder R Arruda; Barbara Konkle; Edwin Stone; Junwei Sun; Jonathan Jacobs; Lou Dell'Osso; Richard Hertle; Jian-xing Ma; T Michael Redmond; Xiaosong Zhu; Bernd Hauck; Olga Zelenaia; Kenneth S Shindler; Maureen G Maguire; J Fraser Wright; Nicholas J Volpe; Jennifer Wellman McDonnell; Alberto Auricchio; Katherine A High; Jean Bennett Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-04-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William W Hauswirth; Tomas S Aleman; Shalesh Kaushal; Artur V Cideciyan; Sharon B Schwartz; Lili Wang; Thomas J Conlon; Sanford L Boye; Terence R Flotte; Barry J Byrne; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Francesco Parmeggiani; Giovanni Sato; Katia De Nadai; Mario R Romano; Andrea Binotto; Ciro Costagliola Journal: Curr Genomics Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 2.236