PURPOSE: Carrier screening for mutations contributing to cystic fibrosis (CF) is typically accomplished with panels composed of variants that are clinically validated primarily in patients of European descent. This approach has created a static genetic and phenotypic profile for CF. An opportunity now exists to reevaluate the disease profile of CFTR at a global population level. METHODS: CFTR allele and genotype frequencies were obtained from a nonpatient cohort with more than 60,000 unrelated personal genomes collected by the Exome Aggregation Consortium. Likely disease-contributing mutations were identified with the use of public database annotations and computational tools. RESULTS: We identified 131 previously described and likely pathogenic variants and another 210 untested variants with a high probability of causing protein damage. None of the current genetic screening panels or existing CFTR mutation databases covered a majority of deleterious variants in any geographical population outside of Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical annotation and mutation coverage by commercially available targeted screening panels for CF are strongly biased toward detection of reproductive risk in persons of European descent. South and East Asian populations are severely underrepresented, in part because of a definition of disease that preferences the phenotype associated with European-typical CFTR alleles.
PURPOSE: Carrier screening for mutations contributing to cystic fibrosis (CF) is typically accomplished with panels composed of variants that are clinically validated primarily in patients of European descent. This approach has created a static genetic and phenotypic profile for CF. An opportunity now exists to reevaluate the disease profile of CFTR at a global population level. METHODS: CFTR allele and genotype frequencies were obtained from a nonpatient cohort with more than 60,000 unrelated personal genomes collected by the Exome Aggregation Consortium. Likely disease-contributing mutations were identified with the use of public database annotations and computational tools. RESULTS: We identified 131 previously described and likely pathogenic variants and another 210 untested variants with a high probability of causing protein damage. None of the current genetic screening panels or existing CFTR mutation databases covered a majority of deleterious variants in any geographical population outside of Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Both clinical annotation and mutation coverage by commercially available targeted screening panels for CF are strongly biased toward detection of reproductive risk in persons of European descent. South and East Asian populations are severely underrepresented, in part because of a definition of disease that preferences the phenotype associated with European-typical CFTR alleles.
Authors: Alexander Schneider; Jessica Larusch; Xiumei Sun; Amy Aloe; Janette Lamb; Robert Hawes; Peter Cotton; Randall E Brand; Michelle A Anderson; Mary E Money; Peter A Banks; Michele D Lewis; John Baillie; Stuart Sherman; James Disario; Frank R Burton; Timothy B Gardner; Stephen T Amann; Andres Gelrud; Ryan George; Matthew J Rockacy; Sirvart Kassabian; Jeremy Martinson; Adam Slivka; Dhiraj Yadav; Nevin Oruc; M Michael Barmada; Raymond Frizzell; David C Whitcomb Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Els Dequeker; Manfred Stuhrmann; Michael A Morris; Teresa Casals; Carlo Castellani; Mireille Claustres; Harry Cuppens; Marie des Georges; Claude Ferec; Milan Macek; Pier-Franco Pignatti; Hans Scheffer; Marianne Schwartz; Michal Witt; Martin Schwarz; Emmanuelle Girodon Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2008-08-06 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Nicola S P Ngiam; Samuel S Chong; Lynette P C Shek; Denise L M Goh; K C Ong; S Y Chng; G H Yeo; Daniel Y T Goh Journal: J Cyst Fibros Date: 2006-03-06 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Gabriel A Lazarin; Imran S Haque; Shivani Nazareth; Kevin Iori; A Scott Patterson; Jessica L Jacobson; John R Marshall; William K Seltzer; Pasquale Patrizio; Eric A Evans; Balaji S Srinivasan Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Melissa J Landrum; Jennifer M Lee; George R Riley; Wonhee Jang; Wendy S Rubinstein; Deanna M Church; Donna R Maglott Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Andrew M Zeiger; Meghan E McGarry; Angel C Y Mak; Vivian Medina; Sandra Salazar; Celeste Eng; Amy K Liu; Sam S Oh; Thomas J Nuckton; Deepti Jain; Thomas W Blackwell; Hyun Min Kang; Goncalo Abecasis; Leandra Cordero Oñate; Max A Seibold; Esteban G Burchard; Jose Rodriguez-Santana Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2019-10-30
Authors: Maya Koretzky; Vence L Bonham; Benjamin E Berkman; Paul Kruszka; Adebowale Adeyemo; Maximilian Muenke; Sara Chandros Hull Journal: Genet Med Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Patrick R Sosnay; Carlo Castellani; Christopher M Penland; Johanna M Rommens; Michelle Lewis; Karen S Raraigh; Mary Corey; Garry R Cutting Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Ari J Silver; Jessica L Larson; Maxwell J Silver; Regine M Lim; Carlos Borroto; Brett Spurrier; Anne Morriss; Lee M Silver Journal: Genet Test Mol Biomarkers Date: 2016-04-22
Authors: Doron M Behar; Ori Inbar; Michal Shteinberg; Michal Gur; Huda Mussaffi; David Shoseyov; Moshe Ashkenazi; Soliman Alkrinawi; Concetta Bormans; Fahed Hakim; Meir Mei-Zahav; Malena Cohen-Cymberknoh; Adi Dagan; Dario Prais; Ifat Sarouk; Patrick Stafler; Bat El Bar Aluma; Gidon Akler; Elie Picard; Micha Aviram; Ori Efrati; Galit Livnat; Joseph Rivlin; Lea Bentur; Hannah Blau; Eitan Kerem; Amihood Singer Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2017-02-19 Impact factor: 2.183