PURPOSE: Genetic tests for the most commonly mutated genes in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) can confirm a clinical diagnosis in the proband and inform family management. Presymptomatic family members can be identified, allowing for targeted clinical monitoring to minimize adverse outcomes. However, the marked locus and allelic heterogeneity associated with DCM have made clinical genetic testing challenging. Novel sequencing platforms have now opened up avenues for more comprehensive diagnostic testing while simultaneously decreasing test cost and turn around time. METHODS: By using a custom design based on triplicate resequencing and separate genotyping of known disease-causing variants, we developed the DCM CardioChip for efficient analysis of 19 genes previously implicated in causing DCM. RESULTS: The chip's analytical sensitivity for known and novel substitution variants is 100% and 98%, respectively. In screening 73 previously tested DCM patients who did not carry clinically significant variants in 10 genes, 7 variants of likely clinical significance were identified in the remaining 9 genes included on the chip. Compared with traditional Sanger-based sequencing, test cost and turn around time were reduced by approximately 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The DCM CardioChip is a highly efficient screening test with a projected clinical sensitivity of 26-29%.
PURPOSE: Genetic tests for the most commonly mutated genes in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) can confirm a clinical diagnosis in the proband and inform family management. Presymptomatic family members can be identified, allowing for targeted clinical monitoring to minimize adverse outcomes. However, the marked locus and allelic heterogeneity associated with DCM have made clinical genetic testing challenging. Novel sequencing platforms have now opened up avenues for more comprehensive diagnostic testing while simultaneously decreasing test cost and turn around time. METHODS: By using a custom design based on triplicate resequencing and separate genotyping of known disease-causing variants, we developed the DCM CardioChip for efficient analysis of 19 genes previously implicated in causing DCM. RESULTS: The chip's analytical sensitivity for known and novel substitution variants is 100% and 98%, respectively. In screening 73 previously tested DCM patients who did not carry clinically significant variants in 10 genes, 7 variants of likely clinical significance were identified in the remaining 9 genes included on the chip. Compared with traditional Sanger-based sequencing, test cost and turn around time were reduced by approximately 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The DCM CardioChip is a highly efficient screening test with a projected clinical sensitivity of 26-29%.
Authors: F Tesson; N Sylvius; A Pilotto; L Dubosq-Bidot; M Peuchmaurd; C Bouchier; A Benaiche; L Mangin; P Charron; A Gavazzi; L Tavazzi; E Arbustini; M Komajda Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: J Peter van Tintelen; Robert M W Hofstra; Hilga Katerberg; Tom Rossenbacker; Ans C P Wiesfeld; Gideon J du Marchie Sarvaas; Arthur A M Wilde; Irene M van Langen; Eline A Nannenberg; Anneke J van der Kooi; Marian Kraak; Isabelle C van Gelder; Dirk Jan van Veldhuisen; Yvonne Vos; Maarten P van den Berg Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2007-09-14 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Andreas Perrot; Shwan Hussein; Volker Ruppert; Hartmut H J Schmidt; Manfred S Wehnert; Nguyen Thuy Duong; Maximilian G Posch; Anna Panek; Rainer Dietz; Ingrid Kindermann; Michael Böhm; Aleksandra Michalewska-Wludarczyk; Anette Richter; Bernhard Maisch; Sabine Pankuweit; Cemil Ozcelik Journal: Basic Res Cardiol Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 17.165
Authors: Tonya Lebet; Richard Chiles; Amy P Hsu; Elaine S Mansfield; Janet A Warrington; Jennifer M Puck Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ralph Knöll; Masahiko Hoshijima; Hal M Hoffman; Veronika Person; Ilka Lorenzen-Schmidt; Marie-Louise Bang; Takeharu Hayashi; Nobuyuki Shiga; Hideo Yasukawa; Wolfgang Schaper; William McKenna; Mitsuhiro Yokoyama; Nicholas J Schork; Jeffrey H Omens; Andrew D McCulloch; Akinori Kimura; Carol C Gregorio; Wolfgang Poller; Jutta Schaper; Heinz P Schultheiss; Kenneth R Chien Journal: Cell Date: 2002-12-27 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: E S Moreira; T J Wiltshire; G Faulkner; A Nilforoushan; M Vainzof; O T Suzuki; G Valle; R Reeves; M Zatz; M R Passos-Bueno; D E Jenne Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Michael E Zwick; Farrell Mcafee; David J Cutler; Timothy D Read; Jacques Ravel; Gregory R Bowman; Darrell R Galloway; Alfred Mateczun Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2004-12-17 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Lisa Denning; Jennifer A Anderson; Ryan Davis; Jeffrey P Gregg; Jennifer Kuzdenyi; Ricardo A Maselli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-09-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kalotina Machini; Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy; Danielle R Azzariti; Himanshu Sharma; Peter Rossetti; Lisa Mahanta; Laura Hutchinson; Heather McLaughlin; Robert C Green; Matthew Lebo; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: C L Hertz; S L Christiansen; L Ferrero-Miliani; M Dahl; P E Weeke; G L Ottesen; R Frank-Hansen; H Bundgaard; N Morling Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2015-09-17 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Jessica R Golbus; Megan J Puckelwartz; Lisa Dellefave-Castillo; John P Fahrenbach; Viswateja Nelakuditi; Lorenzo L Pesce; Peter Pytel; Elizabeth M McNally Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2014-09-01