Edwin M Stone1, Jeaneen L Andorf2, S Scott Whitmore2, Adam P DeLuca2, Joseph C Giacalone2, Luan M Streb2, Terry A Braun2, Robert F Mullins2, Todd E Scheetz2, Val C Sheffield3, Budd A Tucker2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa; Stephen A. Wynn Institute for Vision Research, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. Electronic address: edwin-stone@uiowa.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa; Stephen A. Wynn Institute for Vision Research, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa; Stephen A. Wynn Institute for Vision Research, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa; Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To devise a comprehensive multiplatform genetic testing strategy for inherited retinal disease and to describe its performance in 1000 consecutive families seen by a single clinician. DESIGN: Retrospective series. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand consecutive families seen by a single clinician. METHODS: The clinical records of all patients seen by a single retina specialist between January 2010 and June 2016 were reviewed, and all patients who met the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of inherited retinal disease were included in the study. Each patient was assigned to 1 of 62 diagnostic categories, and this clinical diagnosis was used to define the scope and order of the molecular investigations that were performed. The number of nucleotides evaluated in a given subject ranged from 2 to nearly 900 000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and false genotype rate. RESULTS: Disease-causing genotypes were identified in 760 families (76%). These genotypes were distributed across 104 different genes. More than 75% of these 104 genes have coding sequences small enough to be packaged efficiently into an adeno-associated virus. Mutations in ABCA4 were the most common cause of disease in this cohort (173 families), whereas mutations in 80 genes caused disease in 5 or fewer families (i.e., 0.5% or less). Disease-causing genotypes were identified in 576 of the families without next-generation sequencing (NGS). This included 23 families with mutations in the repetitive region of RPGR exon 15 that would have been missed by NGS. Whole-exome sequencing of the remaining 424 families revealed mutations in an additional 182 families, and whole-genome sequencing of 4 of the remaining 242 families revealed 2 additional genotypes that were invisible by the other methods. Performing the testing in a clinically focused tiered fashion would be 6.1% more sensitive and 17.7% less expensive and would have a significantly lower average false genotype rate than using whole-exome sequencing to assess more than 300 genes in all patients (7.1% vs. 128%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing for inherited retinal disease is now more than 75% sensitive. A clinically directed tiered testing strategy can increase sensitivity and improve statistical significance without increasing cost.
PURPOSE: To devise a comprehensive multiplatform genetic testing strategy for inherited retinal disease and to describe its performance in 1000 consecutive families seen by a single clinician. DESIGN: Retrospective series. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand consecutive families seen by a single clinician. METHODS: The clinical records of all patients seen by a single retina specialist between January 2010 and June 2016 were reviewed, and all patients who met the clinical criteria for a diagnosis of inherited retinal disease were included in the study. Each patient was assigned to 1 of 62 diagnostic categories, and this clinical diagnosis was used to define the scope and order of the molecular investigations that were performed. The number of nucleotides evaluated in a given subject ranged from 2 to nearly 900 000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and false genotype rate. RESULTS: Disease-causing genotypes were identified in 760 families (76%). These genotypes were distributed across 104 different genes. More than 75% of these 104 genes have coding sequences small enough to be packaged efficiently into an adeno-associated virus. Mutations in ABCA4 were the most common cause of disease in this cohort (173 families), whereas mutations in 80 genes caused disease in 5 or fewer families (i.e., 0.5% or less). Disease-causing genotypes were identified in 576 of the families without next-generation sequencing (NGS). This included 23 families with mutations in the repetitive region of RPGR exon 15 that would have been missed by NGS. Whole-exome sequencing of the remaining 424 families revealed mutations in an additional 182 families, and whole-genome sequencing of 4 of the remaining 242 families revealed 2 additional genotypes that were invisible by the other methods. Performing the testing in a clinically focused tiered fashion would be 6.1% more sensitive and 17.7% less expensive and would have a significantly lower average false genotype rate than using whole-exome sequencing to assess more than 300 genes in all patients (7.1% vs. 128%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing for inherited retinal disease is now more than 75% sensitive. A clinically directed tiered testing strategy can increase sensitivity and improve statistical significance without increasing cost.
Authors: F Ann Ran; Patrick D Hsu; Chie-Yu Lin; Jonathan S Gootenberg; Silvana Konermann; Alexandro E Trevino; David A Scott; Azusa Inoue; Shogo Matoba; Yi Zhang; Feng Zhang Journal: Cell Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: C R Newton; A Graham; L E Heptinstall; S J Powell; C Summers; N Kalsheker; J C Smith; A F Markham Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 1989-04-11 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: T P Dryja; T L McGee; E Reichel; L B Hahn; G S Cowley; D W Yandell; M A Sandberg; E L Berson Journal: Nature Date: 1990-01-25 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marie T Lott; Jeremy N Leipzig; Olga Derbeneva; H Michael Xie; Dimitra Chalkia; Mahdi Sarmady; Vincent Procaccio; Douglas C Wallace Journal: Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Date: 2013-12
Authors: Niklas Krumm; Peter H Sudmant; Arthur Ko; Brian J O'Roak; Maika Malig; Bradley P Coe; Aaron R Quinlan; Deborah A Nickerson; Evan E Eichler Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Budd A Tucker; Robert F Mullins; Luan M Streb; Kristin Anfinson; Mari E Eyestone; Emily Kaalberg; Megan J Riker; Arlene V Drack; Terry A Braun; Edwin M Stone Journal: Elife Date: 2013-08-27 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Robert E MacLaren; Markus Groppe; Alun R Barnard; Charles L Cottriall; Tanya Tolmachova; Len Seymour; K Reed Clark; Matthew J During; Frans P M Cremers; Graeme C M Black; Andrew J Lotery; Susan M Downes; Andrew R Webster; Miguel C Seabra Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Qihong Zhang; Joseph C Giacalone; Charles Searby; Edwin M Stone; Budd A Tucker; Val C Sheffield Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Joseph C Giacalone; Jeaneen L Andorf; Qihong Zhang; Erin R Burnight; Dalyz Ochoa; Austin J Reutzel; Malia M Collins; Val C Sheffield; Robert F Mullins; Ian C Han; Edwin M Stone; Budd A Tucker Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Luke A Wiley; Erin R Burnight; Emily E Kaalberg; Chunhua Jiao; Megan J Riker; Jennifer A Halder; Meagan A Luse; Ian C Han; Stephen R Russell; Elliott H Sohn; Edwin M Stone; Budd A Tucker; Robert F Mullins Journal: Hum Gene Ther Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 5.695
Authors: Erin R Burnight; Joseph C Giacalone; Jessica A Cooke; Jessica R Thompson; Laura R Bohrer; Kathleen R Chirco; Arlene V Drack; John H Fingert; Kristan S Worthington; Luke A Wiley; Robert F Mullins; Edwin M Stone; Budd A Tucker Journal: Prog Retin Eye Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 21.198
Authors: Wallace L M Alward; Carly van der Heide; Cheryl L Khanna; Ben R Roos; Sobha Sivaprasad; Jason Kam; Robert Ritch; Andrew Lotery; Robert P Igo; Jessica N Cooke Bailey; Edwin M Stone; Todd E Scheetz; Young H Kwon; Louis R Pasquale; Janey L Wiggs; John H Fingert Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389