Su Fen Ang1, Su Chi Lim2, Clara Sh Tan1, Jessie Cw Fong1, Winston Yc Kon3, Joyce X Lian3, Tavintharan Subramanium4, Chee Fang Sum4. 1. Clinical Research Unit, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), Singapore. 2. Diabetes Center, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), Singapore. Electronic address: lim.su.chi@alexandrahealth.com.sg. 3. Department of Endocrinology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital (TTSH), Singapore. 4. Diabetes Center, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital (KTPH), Singapore.
Abstract
AIMS: Diabetes is increasing globally and Asia is the epicenter. Among those with young-onset diabetes (<45years), the prevalence of monogenic diabetes is estimated to be non-trivial (∼5%). An accurate diagnosis of monogenic diabetes is important to inform treatment, prognosis and genetic counseling. Therefore, a robust clinical algorithm to identify probands for testing is needed. Our aims are (1) to select probands for genetic testing and variant identification based on their clinical phenotype and (2) to evaluate the MODY probability calculator in our multi-ethnic Asian population. METHODS: Eighty-four potential probands, identified in accordance with clinical practice guidelines, were subjected to re-sequencing of 16 monogenic diabetes genes and targeted genotyping for mitochondrial 3243A>G point-mutation. Variants, confirmed by bi-directional Sanger sequencing, were classified as pathogenic if they fulfilled the criteria adapted from American College of Medical Genetics. Performance of MODY calculator (with positive-predictive threshold set at >62.4%) for those with diabetes-onset ⩽35years (data input-limit) (n=71) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (15.5%) harbored likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants: 6 (2 novel) in HNF1A (1 subject concomitantly had another HNF4A variant), 1 in HNF4A, 2 in mt3243A>G and 1 each in GCK, KCNJ11 (novel), ABCC8 (novel) and PAX4 (novel). Performance of the MODY calculator was: sensitivity 0.769, specificity 0.603 and negative predictive value 0.921. When analysis was restricted to MODY1-3, the performance was: 0.875, 0.587 and 0.974, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MODY is non-trivial (∼15%) among Asians with young-onset diabetes. MODY calculator performs well in our population in nominating probands for genetic testing.
AIMS: Diabetes is increasing globally and Asia is the epicenter. Among those with young-onset diabetes (<45years), the prevalence of monogenic diabetes is estimated to be non-trivial (∼5%). An accurate diagnosis of monogenic diabetes is important to inform treatment, prognosis and genetic counseling. Therefore, a robust clinical algorithm to identify probands for testing is needed. Our aims are (1) to select probands for genetic testing and variant identification based on their clinical phenotype and (2) to evaluate the MODY probability calculator in our multi-ethnic Asian population. METHODS: Eighty-four potential probands, identified in accordance with clinical practice guidelines, were subjected to re-sequencing of 16 monogenic diabetes genes and targeted genotyping for mitochondrial 3243A>G point-mutation. Variants, confirmed by bi-directional Sanger sequencing, were classified as pathogenic if they fulfilled the criteria adapted from American College of Medical Genetics. Performance of MODY calculator (with positive-predictive threshold set at >62.4%) for those with diabetes-onset ⩽35years (data input-limit) (n=71) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirteen subjects (15.5%) harbored likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants: 6 (2 novel) in HNF1A (1 subject concomitantly had another HNF4A variant), 1 in HNF4A, 2 in mt3243A>G and 1 each in GCK, KCNJ11 (novel), ABCC8 (novel) and PAX4 (novel). Performance of the MODY calculator was: sensitivity 0.769, specificity 0.603 and negative predictive value 0.921. When analysis was restricted to MODY1-3, the performance was: 0.875, 0.587 and 0.974, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of MODY is non-trivial (∼15%) among Asians with young-onset diabetes. MODY calculator performs well in our population in nominating probands for genetic testing.
Authors: G Sampathkumar; P P Valiyaparambil; H Kumar; N Bhavani; V Nair; U Menon; A Menon; N Abraham; A Chapla; N Thomas Journal: J Endocrinol Invest Date: 2021-11-06 Impact factor: 4.256
Authors: Chang Siang Lim; Shirley Suet Lee Ding; Yaw Sing Tan; Blaise Su Jun Low; Natasha Hui Jin Ng; Vidhya Gomathi Krishnan; Su Fen Ang; Claire Wen Ying Neo; Chandra S Verma; Shawn Hoon; Su Chi Lim; E Shyong Tai; Adrian Kee Keong Teo Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Viswanathan Mohan; Venkatesan Radha; Thong T Nguyen; Eric W Stawiski; Kanika Bajaj Pahuja; Leonard D Goldstein; Jennifer Tom; Ranjit Mohan Anjana; Monica Kong-Beltran; Tushar Bhangale; Suresh Jahnavi; Radhakrishnan Chandni; Vijay Gayathri; Paul George; Na Zhang; Sakthivel Murugan; Sameer Phalke; Subhra Chaudhuri; Ravi Gupta; Jingli Zhang; Sam Santhosh; Jeremy Stinson; Zora Modrusan; V L Ramprasad; Somasekar Seshagiri; Andrew S Peterson Journal: BMC Med Genet Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 2.103
Authors: Clara Si Hua Tan; Su Fen Ang; Ester Yeoh; Bing Xing Goh; Wann Jia Loh; Cheuk Fan Shum; Molly May Ping Eng; Allen Yan Lun Liu; Lovynn Wan Ting Chan; Li Xian Goh; Tavintharan Subramaniam; Chee Fang Sum; Su Chi Lim Journal: J Investig Med High Impact Case Rep Date: 2022 Jan-Dec