The term hereditary ataxia (HA) refers to a heterogeneous group of neurological disorders with multiple genetic etiologies and a wide spectrum of ataxia‐dominated phenotypes. Massive gene analysis in next‐generation sequencing has entered the HA scenario, broadening our genetic and clinical knowledge of these conditions. In this study, we employed a targeted resequencing panel (TRP) in a large and highly heterogeneous cohort of 377 patients with a clinical diagnosis of HA, but no molecular diagnosis on routine genetic tests. We obtained a positive result (genetic diagnosis) in 33.2% of the patients, a rate significantly higher than those reported in similar studies employing TRP (average 19.4%), and in line with those performed using exome sequencing (ES, average 34.6%). Moreover, 15.6% of the patients had an uncertain molecular diagnosis. STUB1, PRKCG, and SPG7 were the most common causative genes. A comparison with published literature data showed that our panel would have identified 97% of the positive cases reported in previous TRP‐based studies and 92% of those diagnosed by ES. Proper use of multigene panels, when combined with detailed phenotypic data, seems to be even more efficient than ES in clinical practice.
Ngs in hereditary ataxia: When rare becomes frequent
Battini R.;
2021-01-01
Abstract
The term hereditary ataxia (HA) refers to a heterogeneous group of neurological disorders with multiple genetic etiologies and a wide spectrum of ataxia‐dominated phenotypes. Massive gene analysis in next‐generation sequencing has entered the HA scenario, broadening our genetic and clinical knowledge of these conditions. In this study, we employed a targeted resequencing panel (TRP) in a large and highly heterogeneous cohort of 377 patients with a clinical diagnosis of HA, but no molecular diagnosis on routine genetic tests. We obtained a positive result (genetic diagnosis) in 33.2% of the patients, a rate significantly higher than those reported in similar studies employing TRP (average 19.4%), and in line with those performed using exome sequencing (ES, average 34.6%). Moreover, 15.6% of the patients had an uncertain molecular diagnosis. STUB1, PRKCG, and SPG7 were the most common causative genes. A comparison with published literature data showed that our panel would have identified 97% of the positive cases reported in previous TRP‐based studies and 92% of those diagnosed by ES. Proper use of multigene panels, when combined with detailed phenotypic data, seems to be even more efficient than ES in clinical practice.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
art-22.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Versione finale editoriale
Licenza:
Creative commons
Dimensione
1.61 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.61 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.