Kristy Lee1, Jonathan S Berg2, Laura Milko2, Kristy Crooks3, Mei Lu3, Chris Bizon4, Phillips Owen4, Kirk C Wilhelmsen5, Karen E Weck3, James P Evans2, Seema Garg6. 1. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Electronic address: kristy_lee@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. The Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Department of Genetics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; The Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Ophthalmology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic yield and the practicality of implementing whole exome sequencing within a clinical ophthalmology setting. DESIGN: Evaluation of a diagnostic protocol. METHODS: setting: Patient participants were enrolled during clinical appointments in a university-based ophthalmic genetics clinic. PATIENT POPULATION: Twenty-six patients with a variety of presumed hereditary retinal dystrophies. INTERVENTION: Participants were offered whole exome sequencing in addition to clinically available sequencing gene panels between July 2012 and January 2013 to determine the molecular etiology of their retinal dystrophy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic yield and acceptability of whole exome sequencing in patients with retinal disorders. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 29 eligible patients (∼90%) who were approached opted to undergo molecular testing. Each participant chose whole exome sequencing in addition to, or in lieu of, clinically available sequencing gene panels. Time to obtain informed consent was manageable in the clinical context. Whole exome sequencing successfully identified known pathogenic mutations or suspected deleterious variants in 57.7% of participants. Additionally, 1 participant had 2 autosomal dominant medically actionable incidental findings (unrelated to retinopathy) that were reported to enable the participant to take preventive action and reduce risk for future disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we identified the molecular etiology for more than half of all participants. Additionally, we found that participants were widely accepting of whole exome sequencing and the possibility of being informed about medically actionable incidental findings.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic yield and the practicality of implementing whole exome sequencing within a clinical ophthalmology setting. DESIGN: Evaluation of a diagnostic protocol. METHODS: setting: Patient participants were enrolled during clinical appointments in a university-based ophthalmic genetics clinic. PATIENT POPULATION: Twenty-six patients with a variety of presumed hereditary retinal dystrophies. INTERVENTION: Participants were offered whole exome sequencing in addition to clinically available sequencing gene panels between July 2012 and January 2013 to determine the molecular etiology of their retinal dystrophy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Diagnostic yield and acceptability of whole exome sequencing in patients with retinal disorders. RESULTS: Twenty-six of 29 eligible patients (∼90%) who were approached opted to undergo molecular testing. Each participant chose whole exome sequencing in addition to, or in lieu of, clinically available sequencing gene panels. Time to obtain informed consent was manageable in the clinical context. Whole exome sequencing successfully identified known pathogenic mutations or suspected deleterious variants in 57.7% of participants. Additionally, 1 participant had 2 autosomal dominant medically actionable incidental findings (unrelated to retinopathy) that were reported to enable the participant to take preventive action and reduce risk for future disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we identified the molecular etiology for more than half of all participants. Additionally, we found that participants were widely accepting of whole exome sequencing and the possibility of being informed about medically actionable incidental findings.
Authors: J C Booij; R J Florijn; J B ten Brink; W Loves; F Meire; M J van Schooneveld; P T V M de Jong; A A B Bergen Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: A Rivera; K White; H Stöhr; K Steiner; N Hemmrich; T Grimm; B Jurklies; B Lorenz; H P Scholl; E Apfelstedt-Sylla; B H Weber Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2000-08-24 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Debra K Breuer; Beverly M Yashar; Elena Filippova; Suja Hiriyanna; Robert H Lyons; Alan J Mears; Bersabell Asaye; Ceren Acar; Raf Vervoort; Alan F Wright; Maria A Musarella; Patricia Wheeler; Ian MacDonald; Alessandro Iannaccone; David Birch; Dennis R Hoffman; Gerald A Fishman; John R Heckenlively; Samuel G Jacobson; Paul A Sieving; Anand Swaroop Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2002-04-30 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Alejandro Estrada-Cuzcano; Robert K Koenekoop; Audrey Senechal; Elfride B W De Baere; Thomy de Ravel; Sandro Banfi; Susanne Kohl; Carmen Ayuso; Dror Sharon; Carel B Hoyng; Christian P Hamel; Bart P Leroy; Carmela Ziviello; Irma Lopez; Alexandre Bazinet; Bernd Wissinger; Ieva Sliesoraityte; Almudena Avila-Fernandez; Karin W Littink; Enzo M Vingolo; Sabrina Signorini; Eyal Banin; Liliana Mizrahi-Meissonnier; Eberhard Zrenner; Ulrich Kellner; Rob W J Collin; Anneke I den Hollander; Frans P M Cremers; B Jeroen Klevering Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2012-11
Authors: Polona Le Quesne Stabej; Zubin Saihan; Nell Rangesh; Heather B Steele-Stallard; John Ambrose; Alison Coffey; Jenny Emmerson; Elene Haralambous; Yasmin Hughes; Karen P Steel; Linda M Luxon; Andrew R Webster; Maria Bitner-Glindzicz Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Laura M Amendola; Jonathan S Berg; Carol R Horowitz; Frank Angelo; Jeannette T Bensen; Barbara B Biesecker; Leslie G Biesecker; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; Kelly Filipski; Stephanie M Fullerton; Bruce D Gelb; Katrina A B Goddard; Benyam Hailu; Ragan Hart; Kristen Hassmiller-Lich; Galen Joseph; Eimear E Kenny; Barbara A Koenig; Sara Knight; Pui-Yan Kwok; Katie L Lewis; Amy L McGuire; Mary E Norton; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Bradford C Powell; Neil Risch; Mimsie Robinson; Christine Rini; Sarah Scollon; Anne M Slavotinek; David L Veenstra; Melissa P Wasserstein; Benjamin S Wilfond; Lucia A Hindorff; Sharon E Plon; Gail P Jarvik Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-09-06 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Manon H C A Peeters; Mubeen Khan; Anoek A M B Rooijakkers; Timo Mulders; Lonneke Haer-Wigman; Camiel J F Boon; Caroline C W Klaver; L Ingeborgh van den Born; Carel B Hoyng; Frans P M Cremers; Anneke I den Hollander; Claire-Marie Dhaenens; Rob W J Collin Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 4.700
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Marta de Castro-Miró; Raul Tonda; Paula Escudero-Ferruz; Rosa Andrés; Andrés Mayor-Lorenzo; Joaquín Castro; Marcela Ciccioli; Daniel A Hidalgo; Juan José Rodríguez-Ezcurra; Jorge Farrando; Juan J Pérez-Santonja; Bru Cormand; Gemma Marfany; Roser Gonzàlez-Duarte Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kristof Van Schil; Sarah Naessens; Stijn Van de Sompele; Marjolein Carron; Alexander Aslanidis; Caroline Van Cauwenbergh; Anja Kathrin Mayer; Mattias Van Heetvelde; Miriam Bauwens; Hannah Verdin; Frauke Coppieters; Michael E Greenberg; Marty G Yang; Marcus Karlstetter; Thomas Langmann; Katleen De Preter; Susanne Kohl; Timothy J Cherry; Bart P Leroy; Elfride De Baere Journal: Genet Med Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Hilary A Scott; Emily M Place; Kevin Ferenchak; Erin Zampaglione; Naomi E Wagner; Katherine R Chao; Stephanie P DiTroia; Daniel Navarro-Gomez; Shizuo Mukai; Rachel M Huckfeldt; Eric A Pierce; Kinga M Bujakowska Journal: Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Jamie M Ellingford; Stephanie Barton; Sanjeev Bhaskar; James O'Sullivan; Simon G Williams; Janine A Lamb; Binay Panda; Panagiotis I Sergouniotis; Rachel L Gillespie; Stephen P Daiger; Georgina Hall; Theodora Gale; I Christopher Lloyd; Paul N Bishop; Simon C Ramsden; Graeme C M Black Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2016-05-11 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Lama Jaffal; Wissam H Joumaa; Alexandre Assi; Charles Helou; George Cherfan; Kazem Zibara; Isabelle Audo; Christina Zeitz; Said El Shamieh Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 4.096