Literature DB >> 27896284

Analyses of more than 60,000 exomes questions the role of numerous genes previously associated with dilated cardiomyopathy.

Nina Nouhravesh1, Gustav Ahlberg1, Jonas Ghouse1, Charlotte Andreasen1, Jesper H Svendsen2, Stig Haunsø1, Henning Bundgaard3, Peter E Weeke1, Morten S Olesen1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hundreds of genetic variants have been described as disease causing in dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Some of these associations are now being questioned. We aimed to identify the prevalence of previously DCM associated variants in the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), in order to identify potentially false-positive DCM variants.
METHODS: Variants listed as DCM disease-causing variants in the Human Gene Mutation Database were extracted from ExAC. Pathogenicity predictions for these variants were mined from dbNSFP v 2.9 database.
RESULTS: Of the 473 DCM variants listed in HGMD, 148 (31%) were found in ExAC. The expected number of individuals with DCM in ExAC is 25 based on the prevalence in the general population. Yet, 35 variants were found in more than 25 individuals. In 13 genes, we identified all variants previously associated with DCM; four genes contained variants above our estimated cut-off. Prediction tools found ExAC variants to be significantly more tolerated when compared to variants not found in ExAC (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION: In ExAC, we identified a higher genotype prevalence of variants considered disease-causing than expected. More importantly, we found 13 genes in which all variants previously associated with DCM were identified in ExAC, questioning the association of these genes with the monogenic form of DCM.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Exome; NGS; false‐positive variants; familial dilated cardiomyopathy; next‐generation sequencing

Year:  2016        PMID: 27896284      PMCID: PMC5118206          DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.245

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Genet Genomic Med        ISSN: 2324-9269            Impact factor:   2.183


Introduction

Familial dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a heart muscle disorder defined by the presence of dilatation and systolic impairment of the left or both ventricles, in the absence of hypertension, coronary artery disease, or valvular abnormalities (Codd et al. 1989; Elliott et al. 2008; Jefferies and Towbin 2010). Dilated cardiomyopathy is a known risk factor for sudden cardiac death (SCD), a major cause of heart failure (HF) and end‐stage disease may necessitate cardiac transplantation in both children and adults (Elliott et al. 2008; Everly 2008; Jefferies and Towbin 2010). Dilated cardiomyopathy is a disorder affecting approximately 1:2500 individuals (Codd et al. 1989; Maron et al. 2006). Factors, such as myocarditis, radiation, or toxins may lead to the development of the DCM phenotype. However, a large proportion of cases are idiopathic and a genetic etiology is reported in 48% of these cases (Haas et al. 2015). Remarkable progress has been made regarding the genetic background of DCM, associating the disease with hundreds of rare variants across many genes (Harakalova et al. 2015; The Human Gene Mutation Database 2015). Due to latest advances in the field of genetic testing, recent reports have found variants previously associated with DCM to be either nonpathogenic or low‐frequency polymorphisms (Andreasen et al. 2013). These findings now question the role of many variants associated with the monogenic form of DCM. In 2014, the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) published a browser providing exome data on approximately 61,000 individuals, thereby giving knowledge on low‐frequency polymorphisms (Exome Aggregation Consortium). We aimed to identify possible false‐positive genetic variants previously associated with DCM, by investigating the prevalence of previously reported DCM associated variants in the ExAC data and comparing the prevalence of these variants with the expected prevalence of DCM in the same population.

Materials and Methods

In ExAC, next‐generation sequencing of protein coding regions of the genome was performed in 60,706 unrelated individuals from different population groups, ultimately divided in South Asians, Europeans (non‐Finnish), Finnish, Africans, East Asians, Latinos and others. No clinical data are available on the ExAC population. The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) was searched with the term “dilated, cardiomyopathy” and missense‐, stop gained‐ and splice variants associated with DCM were identified.(The Human Gene Mutation Database 2015) Variants found in HGMD were then systematically searched for in ExAC. Based on the DCM prevalence of 1:2500 (Codd et al. 1989; Maron et al. 2006), the estimated number of individuals with DCM in ExAC is approximately 25. Thus, a given variant with complete penetrance can be present 25 times in ExAC and still theoretically be the monogenic cause of DCM. PolyPhen‐2‐ and SIFT predictions on all identified missense variants, including those not found in ExAC, were extracted from the database dbNSFP v. 2.9 (Dong et al. 2015). Variants were predicted to be “benign”, “possibly damaging”, or “probably damaging” by PolyPhen‐2 and “damaging” or “tolerated” by SIFT. To give the most accurate prediction, we made a logistic regression (LR) model incorporating 10 prediction scores (SIFT, PolyPhen‐2 HDIV, PolyPhen‐2 HVAR, GERP++, MutationTaster, Mutation Assessor, FATHMM, LRT, SiPhy, PhyloP) and the maximum frequency observed in the 1000 genomes populations. This model classified variants as “tolerated”, “damaging”, or “neutral”. The pathogenicity of stop gained and splice variants were not predicted by prediction tools. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) recently proposed a new set of criteria for interpretation of variants (Richards et al. 2015). They recommended a five‐tier terminology system using the terms “pathogenic”, “likely pathogenic”, “benign”, “likely benign”, and “uncertain significance”. The term “likely” was defined as a 90% certainty. Necessary information was extracted from ExAC, HGMD, Ensembl, the Exome Variant Server (EVS), and published literature (The Human Gene Mutation Database 2015; Ensembl; Exome Aggregation Consortium; Exome Variant Server). In silico analysis was used as a tool to incorporate all information and classify variants (In silico ACMG program). This method was used to further examine and classify the variants found in the 13 genes questioned. Differences in distribution of the LR prediction categories between variants identified in ExAC and variants not identified in ExAC were assessed by a chi‐squared test. A two‐sided P‐value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

We found 473 variants previously associated with DCM in HGMD and 148 (31%) of these were identified in ExAC (Table 1). Eight variants were stop gained variants, nine were splice variants, and 131 were missense variants (Table S1). The missense variants were found in both homozygous and heterozygous individuals. The stop gained variants were all heterozygous and found in five different genes (BAG3, LAMA4, PLN, TTN, and VPS13A) and the splice variants were found in four different genes (FLNC, TNNT2, TTN, and LMNA), all heterozygous for the variants as well.
Table 1

DCM‐associated variants identified in HGMD and found in ExAC

GeneNo. of variants found in ExACNo. of variants found in HGMD
ABCC9 11
ACTN2 34
ANKRD1 25
BAG3 615
CRYAB 23
CSRP3 33
DES 58
DMD 29
DSP 28
FHOD3 11
FLNC 11
FLT1 11
ISL1 11
LAMA2 12
LAMA4 22
LDB3 812
LMNA 1180
MURC 44
MYBPC3 1332
MYH6 34
MYH7 2071
MYPN 510
NCOA6 12
NEBL 44
NEXN 12
PLN 35
PRDM16 34
PSEN1 12
RAF1 36
RBM20 316
SCN5A 38
SGCD 11
SYNE1 11
TMPO 11
TNNI3 18
TNNT2 420
TPM1 110
TTN 1555
TXNRD2 12
VCL 34
VPS13A 11
DCM‐associated variants identified in HGMD and found in ExAC The 148 variants were identified in 7928 alleles corresponding to 7743 individuals carrying a variant when taking homozygous alleles into account. However, this is only valid if we assume that no individual in the ExAC population has more than one DCM‐associated variant. On average, the 148 variants found in ExAC have been screened for in 55,366 individuals. This corresponds to a DCM genotype prevalence of 1:7 (7743:55,366) in ExAC. We found 35 variants present in 25 individuals or more (Table 2), corresponding to a DCM genotype prevalence of 1:8 (7270: 55,366) (Table 2). When eliminating these variant from the analysis, we find a DCM genotype prevalence of 1: 117 (473:55,366) in ExAC. Furthermore, there were 13 genes in which each HGMD listed variant was identified in ExAC; hereof, four genes (TMPO, NEBL, FLT1, and ISL1) contained variants found in more than 25 individuals (Table 3).
Table 2

DCM‐associated variants identified in the Exome Aggregation Consortium with an allele count above 25

GeneVariantAmino acidVariant typeTotal AC/ANTotal allele frequencyLR predictionHomoz.
ACTN2 c.26A>GQ9RMissense83/1178280.0007044Neutral0
ANKRD1 c.319G>TV107LMissense87/1207920.0007202Tolerated0
c.313C>TP105SMissense28/1205280.0002323Tolerated0
BAG3 c.280A>TI94FMissense92/1213760.000758Damaging0
c.1138C>TP380SMissense180/1213780.001483Neutral2
CRYAB c.460G>AG154SMissense93/1214060.000766Tolerated0
CSRP3 c.10T>CW4RMissense287/1210880.0023702Tolerated0
DES c.1375G>AV459IMissense368/1213500.0030326Neutral8
DMD c.9682T>CF3228LMissense59/836520.0007053Tolerated0
c.5016T>AN1672KMissense660/873710.007554Tolerated16
DSP c.6881C>GA2294GMissense103/1214120.0008484Damaging0
FLT1 c.162G>CR54SMissense295/1212580.0024328Tolerated3
ISL1 c.755A>GN252SMissense60/1185620.0005061Damaging0
LAMA2 c.2462C>TT821MMissense246/1209920.0020332Neutral2
LDB3 c.566C>TS189LMissense68/1191360.0005708Unknown0
c.349G>AD117NMissense549/1205460.0045543Neutral1
c.1051A>GT351AMissense58/1136280.0005104Neutral0
c.1535A>CQ512PMissense76/1208080.0006291Neutral0
c.1672A>GI558VMissense46/764620.0006016Neutral0
LMNA c.1930C>TR644CMissense145/1166800.0012427Unknown1
MYBPC3 c.3682C>TR1228CMissense26/1205840.0002156Tolerated0
c.961G>AV321MMissense37/800000.0004625Tolerated0
MYH6 c.3010G>TA1004SMissense119/1214120.0009801Tolerated0
MYPN c.59A>GY20CMissense111/1211360.0009163Damaging0
c.3335C>TP1112LMissense368/1212760.0030344Damaging3
c.3583G>AV1195MMissense31/1209700.0002563Damaging0
NCOA6 c.3526A>GT1176AMissense34/1213940.0002801Tolerated0
NEBL c.1775C>AA592VMissense30/1168840.0002567Tolerated0
c.604G>AG202RMissense258/1212180.0021284Tolerated0
c.180G>CK60NMissense467/1211120.0038559Tolerated0
PRDM16 c.3301G>AV1100MMissense428/1200020.0035666Neutral7
RBM20 c.2662G>AD888NMissense59/208000.0028365Neutral1
SCN5A c.5507T>CI1835TMissense28/1207740.0002318Damaging0
c.1336G>AE446KMissense82/1135120.0007224Damaging0
TMPO c.2068C>TR690CMissense1794/1190000.0150756Neutral141

AN, allele number, shows how many individuals were exome sequenced at the given locus; AC, allele count, a count of how many alleles of a given variant was found; LR, logistic regression; Homoz., homozygous.

Table 3

Genes in which all variants previously associated with DCM were found in the Exome Aggregation Consortium

GeneVariantAmino acidVariant typeTotal AC/ANTotal allele frequencyLR predictionACMG predictionHomoz.
ABCC9 c.4537G>AA1513TMissense6/1206384.9736E‐05DamagingUncertain significance0
CSRP3 c.206A>GK69RMissense2/1213241.6485E‐05DamagingUncertain significance0
c.148G>AA50TMissense5/1210144.1318E‐05DamagingUncertain significance0
c.10T>CW4RMissense287/1210880.00237018ToleratedBenign0
FHOD3 c.3745T>AY1249NMissense2/1202541.6631E‐05DamagingUncertain significance0
FLNC c.3791‐1G>CSplice variant1/1184988.439E‐06Uncertain significance0
FLT1 c.162G>C54.RMissense295/1212580.00243283ToleratedBenign3
ISL1 c.755A>GN252SMissense60/1185620.00050606DamagingBenign0
LAMA4 c.3217C>TR1073Stop‐gain1/1214048.237E‐06Pathogenic0
c.2828C>TP943LMissense3/1212842.4735E‐05ToleratedUncertain significance0
MURC c.384C>GN128KMissense13/1165180.00011157DamagingPathogenic0
c.418C>TR140WMissense6/1200844.9965E‐05NeutralUncertain significance0
c.458T>CL153PMissense1/1211308.2556E‐06NeutralUncertain significance0
c.1091C>TS364LMissense2/1174661.7026E‐05NeutralUncertain significance0
NEBL c.1775C>AA592VMissense30/1168840.00025666ToleratedLikely benign0
c.604G>AG202RMissense258/1212180.0021284ToleratedLikely benign0
c.383A>GQ128LMissense5/1213064.1218E‐05ToleratedUncertain significance0
c.180G>CK60NMissense467/1211120.00385594ToleratedUncertain significance0
SGCD c.212G>CR71TMissense3/1148582.6119E‐05DamagingUncertain significance0
SYNE1 c.24422G>AR8141HMissense7/1116986.2669E‐05ToleratedUncertain significance0
TMPO c.2068C>TR690CMissense1794/1190000.01507563NeutralLikely benign141
VPS13A c.9403C>TR3135Stop‐gain3/1204482.4907E‐05Uncertain significance0

AN, allele number, shows how many individuals were exome sequenced at the given locus; AC, allele count, a count of how many alleles of a given variant was found; LR, logistic regression; Homoz., homozygous.

DCM‐associated variants identified in the Exome Aggregation Consortium with an allele count above 25 AN, allele number, shows how many individuals were exome sequenced at the given locus; AC, allele count, a count of how many alleles of a given variant was found; LR, logistic regression; Homoz., homozygous. Genes in which all variants previously associated with DCM were found in the Exome Aggregation Consortium AN, allele number, shows how many individuals were exome sequenced at the given locus; AC, allele count, a count of how many alleles of a given variant was found; LR, logistic regression; Homoz., homozygous. The pathogenicity of the variants was determined by Polyphen‐2, SIFT, and LR analysis. Since LR includes SIFT and Polyphen‐2, only LR data are presented here (SIFT and Polyphen‐2 data are presented in Table S2). LR predicted 39 (26%) of the 148 variants to be tolerated, 61 (41%) to be damaging, and 28 (19%) to be neutral. A total of 20 (14%) variants were classified as unknown. Of the remaining 325 DCM‐associated variants 28 (9%) were predicted to be tolerated, 190 (58%) to be damaging, 33 (10%) to be neutral, and 74 (23%) were classified as unknown (Table S1). When comparing variants found in ExAC with those not found in ExAC, we find a significantly larger number of tolerated variants in ExAC when using LR prediction (P = 0.004). However, there was no difference in the number of damaging and neutral variants between the two groups (P = 0.07 and P = 0.09, respectively). The pathogenicity of variants found in the 13 genes in which all HGMD listed variants were identified in ExAC was further classified according to the ACMG guidelines. Of the 22 variants, 14 were of uncertain significance, three were classified as likely benign, three as benign, and two as pathogenic (Table 3).

Discussion

In a recently published exome browser, ExAC, we identified 148 variants previously associated with DCM. This corresponds to 31% of all variants associated with DCM, questioning a substantial proportion of the genetic background. The estimated prevalence of DCM is 1:2500 in the general population, (Codd et al. 1989; Maron et al. 2006) we would therefore expect around 25 individuals to have DCM in the ExAC data. The 148 variants found in ExAC were identified in 7743 individuals, corresponding to a genotype prevalence of 1:7. Thus, the genotype prevalence was 3–400‐fold higher than the expected phenotype prevalence of DCM. This could relate to low penetrance – though unlikely to explain a difference of this size – or it might relate to lower pathogenicity of these variants. We found 35 variants to be present in more than 25 individuals. Recent guidelines stated that an allele frequency which is higher than expected for a disease in a control population is considered a strong indication for a benign interpretation (Richards et al. 2015). Supporting the notion, that these genetic variants are less likely to be monogenetic causes of DCM. The remaining 113 variants found in ExAC were present in <25 alleles and an interpretation of these variants is therefore more complicated. LR predicted variants found in ExAC to be significantly more tolerated (P = 0.004). This could indicate that variants identified in ExAC are less likely disease‐causing in comparison to those not found ExAC. The most important finding of this study is the identification of 13 genes in which all variants previously associated with DCM were found in ExAC (Table 3). This highly questions the role of these genes in the DCM pathogenesis and further suggests that these genes could be innocent bystanders with regard to DCM. Four genes, TMPO, NEBL, FLT1, and ISL1, are specially worth noticing, as variants found in these genes were found in more than 25 individuals. Interestingly, variants in TMPO and FLT1 have previously been identified numerously in a large control population (Andreasen et al. 2013). However, our study validates this in a control population ninefold larger. The four genes, TMPO, NEBL, FLT1, and ISL1, are examples of genes initially associated through candidate gene approach due to a plausible association to DCM. NEBL and FLT1 are both implicated in the contraction process of the myocardium, (Zeller et al. 2006; Purevjav et al. 2010) while ISL1 and TMPO are important genes in the prenatal development of the myocardial contractile elements (Taylor et al. 2005; Friedrich et al. 2013). Our study indicates that variants identified in these genes are too frequent to have a causal role in the pathogenicity of DCM. The new ACMG guidelines provide a more stringent approach with regard to classifying variants. We applied these guidelines on the variants found in the 13 genes questioned and found a large proportion to be of uncertain significance (Table 3), due to either conflicting evidence or lack of evidence (Table S3). This simply demonstrates that we do not have sufficient evidence for classification of these variants. Due to advances in the genetic field, exome sequencing has become more accessible in recent years. Thus, a large number of reports have been conducted, to separate false‐positive variants from truly disease‐causing variants in different cardiomyopathies and channelopathies (Norton et al. 2012; Refsgaard et al. 2012; Andreasen et al. 2013; Mogensen et al. 2015). All together, these findings suggest a revision of previously DCM‐associated variants and an optimized approach for the clinical application of genetic findings. Genetic screening is applied in daily clinical practice more than ever, stressing the importance of accurately classifying genetic variants. Presymptomatic testing of relatives for a false‐positive variant will lead to a wrong differentiation between carriers at risk – and non‐carriers not at risk, ultimately leading to devastating outcomes. It is therefore of the outmost importance that variants reported as causative truly are disease‐causing. In addition, our data suggest that a positive genetic test result should not be considered pathogenic beyond doubt but considered a supplement to the clinical assessment. In conclusion, we found a much higher genotype prevalence of previously DCM‐associated variants than expected in a newly published population‐based exome browser. Our findings suggest that some of these previously DCM‐associated variants could represent false‐positive findings or at best disease modifiers. More importantly, we found 13 genes in which all variants previously associated with DCM were identified, which seriously questions these genes as likely monogenic causes of DCM. The study was limited by the lack of clinical data. However, the penetrance of the disease and the age at onset is highly variable. Thus, clinical data would not have changed the conclusion of this study (Mestroni et al. 1999). We acknowledge that the cut‐off can be debated. However, the cut‐off is arbitrary and only provided as a tool to highlight variants too numerous, to be a monogenic cause of DCM. We choose a very conservative cut‐off based on the prevalence of DCM (1:2500), as it implicates that all DCM cases in the ExAC browser are caused by one variant, which is indeed unlikely. However, a small overrepresentation of DCM in the ExAC data is possible. Nevertheless, it would be unlikely that this would contribute with more than a few alleles to the total allele count for each reported variant as most DCM variants reported in the literature are very rare variants specific for a family. In other words, we still find 25 as a reasonable cut‐off. The assumption that no individual has more than one DCM‐associated variant in ExAC is of course a limitation. However, this is the condition for the analysis. We rely on the fact that the prevalence of DCM is so high in ExAC, that it is very unlikely that the difference in prevalence of DCM in ExAC and the general population can be explained by individuals carrying more than one variant.

Conflict of Interest

None declared. Table S1. DCM‐associated variants identified in the Exome Aggregation Consortium. Click here for additional data file. Table S2. Additional analysis for Polyphen‐2 and SIFT predictions Chi‐squared test for Polyphen‐2 predictions. Click here for additional data file. Table S3. ACMG classification of variants in 13 genes. Click here for additional data file.
  18 in total

1.  Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies.

Authors:  Chengliang Dong; Peng Wei; Xueqiu Jian; Richard Gibbs; Eric Boerwinkle; Kai Wang; Xiaoming Liu
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  2014-12-30       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 2.  Guidelines for the study of familial dilated cardiomyopathies. Collaborative Research Group of the European Human and Capital Mobility Project on Familial Dilated Cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  L Mestroni; B Maisch; W J McKenna; K Schwartz; P Charron; C Rocco; F Tesson; A Richter; A Wilke; M Komajda
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 29.983

3.  Contemporary definitions and classification of the cardiomyopathies: an American Heart Association Scientific Statement from the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Heart Failure and Transplantation Committee; Quality of Care and Outcomes Research and Functional Genomics and Translational Biology Interdisciplinary Working Groups; and Council on Epidemiology and Prevention.

Authors:  Barry J Maron; Jeffrey A Towbin; Gaetano Thiene; Charles Antzelevitch; Domenico Corrado; Donna Arnett; Arthur J Moss; Christine E Seidman; James B Young
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-03-27       Impact factor: 29.690

4.  Thymopoietin (lamina-associated polypeptide 2) gene mutation associated with dilated cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Matthew R G Taylor; Dobromir Slavov; Andreas Gajewski; Sylvia Vlcek; Lisa Ku; Pamela R Fain; Elisa Carniel; Andrea Di Lenarda; Gianfranco Sinagra; Mark M Boucek; Jean Cavanaugh; Sharon L Graw; Patsy Ruegg; Jennie Feiger; Xiao Zhu; Debra A Ferguson; Michael R Bristow; Josef Gotzmann; Roland Foisner; Luisa Mestroni
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 4.878

5.  Large-scale mutation screening in patients with dilated or hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a pilot study using DGGE.

Authors:  Raphael Zeller; Boris T Ivandic; Philipp Ehlermann; Oliver Mücke; Christian Zugck; Andrew Remppis; Evangelos Giannitsis; Hugo A Katus; Dieter Weichenhan
Journal:  J Mol Med (Berl)       Date:  2006-05-20       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  A novel genetic variant in the transcription factor Islet-1 exerts gain of function on myocyte enhancer factor 2C promoter activity.

Authors:  Felix W Friedrich; Gilles Dilanian; Patricia Khattar; Denise Juhr; Lucie Gueneau; Philippe Charron; Véronique Fressart; Jean-Thomas Vilquin; Richard Isnard; Laurent Gouya; Pascale Richard; Naima Hammoudi; Michel Komajda; Gisèle Bonne; Thomas Eschenhagen; Olivier Dubourg; Eric Villard; Lucie Carrier
Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 15.534

7.  Cardiac transplantation in the United States: an analysis of the UNOS registry.

Authors:  Matthew J Everly
Journal:  Clin Transpl       Date:  2008

8.  Classification of the cardiomyopathies: a position statement from the European Society Of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases.

Authors:  Perry Elliott; Bert Andersson; Eloisa Arbustini; Zofia Bilinska; Franco Cecchi; Philippe Charron; Olivier Dubourg; Uwe Kühl; Bernhard Maisch; William J McKenna; Lorenzo Monserrat; Sabine Pankuweit; Claudio Rapezzi; Petar Seferovic; Luigi Tavazzi; Andre Keren
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  2007-10-04       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Epidemiology of idiopathic dilated and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. A population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1975-1984.

Authors:  M B Codd; D D Sugrue; B J Gersh; L J Melton
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  High prevalence of genetic variants previously associated with LQT syndrome in new exome data.

Authors:  Lena Refsgaard; Anders G Holst; Golnaz Sadjadieh; Stig Haunsø; Jonas B Nielsen; Morten S Olesen
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 4.246

View more
  15 in total

Review 1.  Genetics of paediatric cardiomyopathies.

Authors:  Stephanie M Ware
Journal:  Curr Opin Pediatr       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.856

2.  Meta-analysis of cardiomyopathy-associated variants in troponin genes identifies loci and intragenic hot spots that are associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Hanna J Tadros; Chelsea S Life; Gustavo Garcia; Elisa Pirozzi; Edward G Jones; Susmita Datta; Michelle S Parvatiyar; P Bryant Chase; Hugh D Allen; Jeffrey J Kim; Jose R Pinto; Andrew P Landstrom
Journal:  J Mol Cell Cardiol       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 5.000

3.  Assessment of fibroblast nuclear morphology aids interpretation of LMNA variants.

Authors:  Florence H J van Tienen; Patrick J Lindsey; Miriam A F Kamps; Ingrid P Krapels; Frans C S Ramaekers; Han G Brunner; Arthur van den Wijngaard; Jos L V Broers
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 4.  Genetic Testing in Inherited Heart Diseases: Practical Considerations for Clinicians.

Authors:  Melanie Care; Vijay Chauhan; Danna Spears
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 5.  Molecular insights into cardiomyopathies associated with desmin (DES) mutations.

Authors:  Andreas Brodehl; Anna Gaertner-Rommel; Hendrik Milting
Journal:  Biophys Rev       Date:  2018-06-20

6.  The genetic architecture of pediatric cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Stephanie M Ware; Surbhi Bhatnagar; Phillip J Dexheimer; James D Wilkinson; Arthi Sridhar; Xiao Fan; Yufeng Shen; Muhammad Tariq; Jeffrey A Schubert; Steven D Colan; Ling Shi; Charles E Canter; Daphne T Hsu; Neha Bansal; Steven A Webber; Melanie D Everitt; Paul F Kantor; Joseph W Rossano; Elfriede Pahl; Paolo Rusconi; Teresa M Lee; Jeffrey A Towbin; Ashwin K Lal; Wendy K Chung; Erin M Miller; Bruce Aronow; Lisa J Martin; Steven E Lipshultz
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-01-12       Impact factor: 11.043

Review 7.  Genetics of Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Clinical Implications.

Authors:  A Paldino; G De Angelis; M Merlo; M Gigli; M Dal Ferro; G M Severini; L Mestroni; G Sinagra
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 2.931

8.  Genetic investigations of 100 inherited cardiac disease-related genes in deceased individuals with schizophrenia.

Authors:  Sofie Lindgren Christiansen; Jeppe Dyrberg Andersen; Gonçalo Espregueira Themudo; Christin Løth Hertz; Johannes Rødbro Busch; Martin Roest Christensen; Kristine Boisen Olsen; Jytte Banner; Niels Morling
Journal:  Int J Legal Med       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 2.686

9.  Interpretation of Incidental Genetic Findings Localizing to Genes Associated With Cardiac Channelopathies and Cardiomyopathies.

Authors:  Jordan E Ezekian; Catherine Rehder; Priya S Kishnani; Andrew P Landstrom
Journal:  Circ Genom Precis Med       Date:  2021-08-13

10.  The contribution of pathogenic variants in breast cancer susceptibility genes to familial breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Thomas P Slavin; Kara N Maxwell; Jenna Lilyquist; Joseph Vijai; Kenneth Offit; Katherine L Nathanson; Fergus J Couch; Susan L Neuhausen; Steven N Hart; Vignesh Ravichandran; Tinu Thomas; Ann Maria; Danylo Villano; Kasmintan A Schrader; Raymond Moore; Chunling Hu; Bradley Wubbenhorst; Brandon M Wenz; Kurt D'Andrea; Mark E Robson; Paolo Peterlongo; Bernardo Bonanni; James M Ford; Judy E Garber; Susan M Domchek; Csilla Szabo; Jeffrey N Weitzel
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2017-06-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.