Arlene V Drack1, Scott R Lambert, Edwin M Stone. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. arlene-drack@uiowa.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the current state of molecular genetic testing as it relates to pediatric ophthalmology and to discuss its uses. DESIGN: Review and evaluation of available molecular genetic testing. METHODS: Literature review and discussion of testing in practice based on the authors' clinical and laboratory experience. RESULTS: Fee-for-service testing for many genetic eye diseases now is available. A report is always generated for fee-for-service testing. Detection of DNA variants in genes known to cause eye disease must be interpreted taking into account the variability of the human genome, the presence of benign variants (polymorphisms), and the carrier frequency of recessive alleles. Negative results in genetic testing are helpful in some disorders for which most of the causative genes are known and many disease-causing variants have already been reported, but are less helpful in those that currently have many undiscovered causative genes or novel mutations. Research-based testing also is available, but does not always yield a result. Patients with RPE65-associated Leber congenital amaurosis may be eligible for the current gene therapy trial. Patients with a variety of disorders may benefit from improved surveillance if their genetic diagnosis is known. CONCLUSIONS: Entry into the genetic testing system often is via the patient's ophthalmologist. Collaboration with geneticists and genetic counselors, use of web sites to keep up with the ever-changing availability and detection rates, and knowledge of clinical trials, when combined with excellent clinical diagnosis, can improve diagnosis and allow eligible patients to participate in treatment trials. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: To review the current state of molecular genetic testing as it relates to pediatric ophthalmology and to discuss its uses. DESIGN: Review and evaluation of available molecular genetic testing. METHODS: Literature review and discussion of testing in practice based on the authors' clinical and laboratory experience. RESULTS: Fee-for-service testing for many genetic eye diseases now is available. A report is always generated for fee-for-service testing. Detection of DNA variants in genes known to cause eye disease must be interpreted taking into account the variability of the human genome, the presence of benign variants (polymorphisms), and the carrier frequency of recessive alleles. Negative results in genetic testing are helpful in some disorders for which most of the causative genes are known and many disease-causing variants have already been reported, but are less helpful in those that currently have many undiscovered causative genes or novel mutations. Research-based testing also is available, but does not always yield a result. Patients with RPE65-associated Leber congenital amaurosis may be eligible for the current gene therapy trial. Patients with a variety of disorders may benefit from improved surveillance if their genetic diagnosis is known. CONCLUSIONS: Entry into the genetic testing system often is via the patient's ophthalmologist. Collaboration with geneticists and genetic counselors, use of web sites to keep up with the ever-changing availability and detection rates, and knowledge of clinical trials, when combined with excellent clinical diagnosis, can improve diagnosis and allow eligible patients to participate in treatment trials. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: F Mirzayans; D B Gould; E Héon; G D Billingsley; J C Cheung; A J Mears; M A Walter Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: D W Yandell; T A Campbell; S H Dayton; R Petersen; D Walton; J B Little; A McConkie-Rosell; E G Buckley; T P Dryja Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-12-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Norman E Breslow; Robin Norris; Patricia A Norkool; Tammy Kang; J Bruce Beckwith; Elizabeth J Perlman; Michael L Ritchey; Daniel M Green; Kim E Nichols Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carmel Toomes; Helen M Bottomley; Sheila Scott; David A Mackey; Jamie E Craig; Binoy Appukuttan; J Timothy Stout; Christina J Flaxel; Kang Zhang; Graeme C M Black; Alan Fryer; Louise M Downey; Chris F Inglehearn Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: A R Philp; M Jin; S Li; E I Schindler; A Iannaccone; B L Lam; R G Weleber; G A Fishman; S G Jacobson; R F Mullins; Gabriel H Travis; Edwin M Stone Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Shannon E Boye; Wei-Chieh Huang; Alejandro J Roman; Alexander Sumaroka; Sanford L Boye; Renee C Ryals; Melani B Olivares; Qing Ruan; Budd A Tucker; Edwin M Stone; Anand Swaroop; Artur V Cideciyan; William W Hauswirth; Samuel G Jacobson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-26 Impact factor: 3.240