Debarshi Mustafi1, Fuki M Hisama2, Jennifer Huey3, Jennifer R Chao4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; Department of Ophthalmology, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: debarshi@uw.edu. 2. Division of Medical Genetics, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate genetic testing platforms used to aid in the diagnosis of inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs). DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic tests and technologies. SUBJECTS: Targeted genetic panel testing for IRDs. METHODS: Data collected regarding targeted genetic panel testing for IRDs offered by different laboratories were investigated for the inclusion of coding and noncoding variants in disease genes. Both large IRD panels and smaller, more focused, disease-specific panels were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of disease genes tested as well as the commonality and uniqueness across testing platforms in both coding and noncoding variants of disease. RESULTS: Across the 3 IRD panel tests investigated, 409 unique genes are represented, of which 269 genes are tested by all 3 panels. The top 20 genes known to cause over 70% of all IRDs are represented in the 269 common genes tested by all 3 panels. In addition, 138 noncoding variants in 50 unique genes are assayed across the 3 platforms. Focused, disease-specific panels exhibit significant variability across the 5 testing platforms that were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Ordering genetic testing for IRDs is not straightforward, as evidenced by the multitude of panels available to providers. It is important that there is coverage of both coding and noncoding regions in IRD genes to offer diagnoses in these patients. This paper details the diversity of testing platforms currently available to clinicians and provides a thorough explanation of the genes tested in the different IRD panels. In a time of increased importance of the clinical genetic testing of patients with IRDs, knowledge of the proper test to order is paramount.
PURPOSE: To evaluate genetic testing platforms used to aid in the diagnosis of inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs). DESIGN: Evaluation of diagnostic tests and technologies. SUBJECTS: Targeted genetic panel testing for IRDs. METHODS: Data collected regarding targeted genetic panel testing for IRDs offered by different laboratories were investigated for the inclusion of coding and noncoding variants in disease genes. Both large IRD panels and smaller, more focused, disease-specific panels were included in the analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of disease genes tested as well as the commonality and uniqueness across testing platforms in both coding and noncoding variants of disease. RESULTS: Across the 3 IRD panel tests investigated, 409 unique genes are represented, of which 269 genes are tested by all 3 panels. The top 20 genes known to cause over 70% of all IRDs are represented in the 269 common genes tested by all 3 panels. In addition, 138 noncoding variants in 50 unique genes are assayed across the 3 platforms. Focused, disease-specific panels exhibit significant variability across the 5 testing platforms that were studied. CONCLUSIONS: Ordering genetic testing for IRDs is not straightforward, as evidenced by the multitude of panels available to providers. It is important that there is coverage of both coding and noncoding regions in IRD genes to offer diagnoses in these patients. This paper details the diversity of testing platforms currently available to clinicians and provides a thorough explanation of the genes tested in the different IRD panels. In a time of increased importance of the clinical genetic testing of patients with IRDs, knowledge of the proper test to order is paramount.
Authors: Timothy J Cherry; Marty G Yang; David A Harmin; Peter Tao; Andrew E Timms; Miriam Bauwens; Rando Allikmets; Evan M Jones; Rui Chen; Elfride De Baere; Michael E Greenberg Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Pengfei Liu; Linyan Meng; Elizabeth A Normand; Fan Xia; Xiaofei Song; Andrew Ghazi; Jill Rosenfeld; Pilar L Magoulas; Alicia Braxton; Patricia Ward; Hongzheng Dai; Bo Yuan; Weimin Bi; Rui Xiao; Xia Wang; Theodore Chiang; Francesco Vetrini; Weimin He; Hanyin Cheng; Jie Dong; Charul Gijavanekar; Paul J Benke; Jonathan A Bernstein; Tanya Eble; Yasemen Eroglu; Deanna Erwin; Luis Escobar; James B Gibson; Karen Gripp; Soledad Kleppe; Mary K Koenig; Andrea M Lewis; Marvin Natowicz; Pedro Mancias; LaKeesha Minor; Fernando Scaglia; Christian P Schaaf; Haley Streff; Hilary Vernon; Crescenda L Uhles; Elaine H Zackai; Nan Wu; V Reid Sutton; Arthur L Beaudet; Donna Muzny; Richard A Gibbs; Jennifer E Posey; Seema Lalani; Chad Shaw; Christine M Eng; James R Lupski; Yaping Yang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alex S Nord; Matthew J Blow; Catia Attanasio; Jennifer A Akiyama; Amy Holt; Roya Hosseini; Sengthavy Phouanenavong; Ingrid Plajzer-Frick; Malak Shoukry; Veena Afzal; John L R Rubenstein; Edward M Rubin; Len A Pennacchio; Axel Visel Journal: Cell Date: 2013-12-19 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: S H Friend; R Bernards; S Rogelj; R A Weinberg; J M Rapaport; D M Albert; T P Dryja Journal: Nature Date: 1986 Oct 16-22 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Edwin M Stone; Jeaneen L Andorf; S Scott Whitmore; Adam P DeLuca; Joseph C Giacalone; Luan M Streb; Terry A Braun; Robert F Mullins; Todd E Scheetz; Val C Sheffield; Budd A Tucker Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-05-27 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Valerie A Schneider; Tina Graves-Lindsay; Kerstin Howe; Nathan Bouk; Hsiu-Chuan Chen; Paul A Kitts; Terence D Murphy; Kim D Pruitt; Françoise Thibaud-Nissen; Derek Albracht; Robert S Fulton; Milinn Kremitzki; Vincent Magrini; Chris Markovic; Sean McGrath; Karyn Meltz Steinberg; Kate Auger; William Chow; Joanna Collins; Glenn Harden; Timothy Hubbard; Sarah Pelan; Jared T Simpson; Glen Threadgold; James Torrance; Jonathan M Wood; Laura Clarke; Sergey Koren; Matthew Boitano; Paul Peluso; Heng Li; Chen-Shan Chin; Adam M Phillippy; Richard Durbin; Richard K Wilson; Paul Flicek; Evan E Eichler; Deanna M Church Journal: Genome Res Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Johannes Birtel; Martin Gliem; Kristina Hess; Theresa H Birtel; Frank G Holz; Ulrich Zechner; Hanno J Bolz; Philipp Herrmann Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2020-01-28 Impact factor: 4.096