PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the mutation frequency distribution for a 32-mutation panel and a 69-mutation panel used for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Further aims of the study were to examine the race-specific detection rates provided by both panels and to assess the performance of extended panels in large-scale, population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Although genetic screening for the most common CFTR mutations allows detection of nearly 90% of cystic fibrosis carriers, the large number of other mutations, and their distribution within different ethnic groups, limits the utility of general population screening. METHODS: Patients referred for cystic fibrosis screening from January 2005 through December 2010 were tested using either a 32-mutation panel (n = 1,601,308 individuals) or a 69-mutation panel (n = 109,830). RESULTS: The carrier frequencies observed for the 69-mutation panel study population (1/36) and Caucasian (1/27) and African-American individuals (1/79) agree well with published cystic fibrosis carrier frequencies; however, a higher carrier frequency was observed for Hispanic-American individuals (1/48) using the 69-mutation panel as compared with the 32-mutation panel (1/69). The 69-mutation panel detected ~20% more mutations than the 32-mutation panel for both African-American and Hispanic-American individuals. CONCLUSION: Expanded panels using race-specific variants can improve cystic fibrosis carrier detection rates within specific populations. However, it is important that the pathogenicity and the relative frequency of these variants are confirmed.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the mutation frequency distribution for a 32-mutation panel and a 69-mutation panel used for cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Further aims of the study were to examine the race-specific detection rates provided by both panels and to assess the performance of extended panels in large-scale, population-based cystic fibrosis carrier screening. Although genetic screening for the most common CFTR mutations allows detection of nearly 90% of cystic fibrosis carriers, the large number of other mutations, and their distribution within different ethnic groups, limits the utility of general population screening. METHODS: Patients referred for cystic fibrosis screening from January 2005 through December 2010 were tested using either a 32-mutation panel (n = 1,601,308 individuals) or a 69-mutation panel (n = 109,830). RESULTS: The carrier frequencies observed for the 69-mutation panel study population (1/36) and Caucasian (1/27) and African-American individuals (1/79) agree well with published cystic fibrosis carrier frequencies; however, a higher carrier frequency was observed for Hispanic-American individuals (1/48) using the 69-mutation panel as compared with the 32-mutation panel (1/69). The 69-mutation panel detected ~20% more mutations than the 32-mutation panel for both African-American and Hispanic-American individuals. CONCLUSION: Expanded panels using race-specific variants can improve cystic fibrosis carrier detection rates within specific populations. However, it is important that the pathogenicity and the relative frequency of these variants are confirmed.
Authors: Jason Rho; Chul Ahn; Ang Gao; Gregory S Sawicki; Ashley Keller; Raksha Jain Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Anna Evans Phillips; Jessica LaRusch; Phil Greer; Judah Abberbock; Samer Alkaade; Stephen T Amann; Michelle A Anderson; John Baillie; Peter A Banks; Randall E Brand; Darwin Conwell; Gregory A Coté; Christopher E Forsmark; Timothy B Gardner; Andres Gelrud; Nalini Guda; Michele Lewis; Mary E Money; Thiruvengadam Muniraj; Bimaljit S Sandhu; Stuart Sherman; Vikesh K Singh; Adam Slivka; Gong Tang; C Mel Wilcox; David C Whitcomb; Dhiraj Yadav Journal: Pancreatology Date: 2018-05-19 Impact factor: 3.996
Authors: Anthony R Gregg; Mahmoud Aarabi; Susan Klugman; Natalia T Leach; Michael T Bashford; Tamar Goldwaser; Emily Chen; Teresa N Sparks; Honey V Reddi; Aleksandar Rajkovic; Jeffrey S Dungan Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Yong Hwan Park; Elaine F Remmers; Wonyong Lee; Amanda K Ombrello; Lawton K Chung; Zhao Shilei; Deborah L Stone; Maya I Ivanov; Nicole A Loeven; Karyl S Barron; Patrycja Hoffmann; Michele Nehrebecky; Yeliz Z Akkaya-Ulum; Erdal Sag; Banu Balci-Peynircioglu; Ivona Aksentijevich; Ahmet Gül; Charles N Rotimi; Hua Chen; James B Bliska; Seza Ozen; Daniel L Kastner; Daniel Shriner; Jae Jin Chae Journal: Nat Immunol Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 25.606
Authors: Lucy A Clunes; Naia McMillan-Castanares; Neil Mehta; Afia Mesadieu; Jorge Rodriguez; Mary Maj; Mark T Clunes Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2020-06-25
Authors: Michelle L Thompson; Candice R Finnila; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Matthew B Neu; Michelle D Amaral; Susan M Hiatt; Kelly M East; David E Gray; James M J Lawlor; Whitley V Kelley; Edward J Lose; Carla A Rich; Shirley Simmons; Shawn E Levy; Richard M Myers; Gregory S Barsh; E Martina Bebin; Gregory M Cooper Journal: Genet Med Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 8.822