Predictors for a dementia gene mutation based on gene-panel next-generation sequencing of a large dementia referral series
-
Published:2018-10-02
Issue:12
Volume:25
Page:3399-3412
-
ISSN:1359-4184
-
Container-title:Molecular Psychiatry
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Mol Psychiatry
Author:
Koriath C.ORCID, Kenny J., Adamson G., Druyeh R., Taylor W., Beck J., Quinn L., Mok T. H., Dimitriadis A., Norsworthy P.ORCID, Bass N., Carter J., Walker Z., Kipps C., Coulthard E., Polke J. M., Bernal-Quiros M., Denning N., Thomas R., Raybould R., Williams J., Mummery C. J., Wild E. J.ORCID, Houlden H.ORCID, Tabrizi S. J., Rossor M. N., Hummerich H., Warren J. D., Rowe J. B., Rohrer J. D., Schott J. M.ORCID, Fox N. C., Collinge J., Mead S.
Abstract
AbstractNext-generation genetic sequencing (NGS) technologies facilitate the screening of multiple genes linked to neurodegenerative dementia, but there are few reports about their use in clinical practice. Which patients would most profit from testing, and information on the likelihood of discovery of a causal variant in a clinical syndrome, are conspicuously absent from the literature, mostly for a lack of large-scale studies. We applied a validated NGS dementia panel to 3241 patients with dementia and healthy aged controls; 13,152 variants were classified by likelihood of pathogenicity. We identified 354 deleterious variants (DV, 12.6% of patients); 39 were novel DVs. Age at clinical onset, clinical syndrome and family history each strongly predict the likelihood of finding a DV, but healthcare setting and gender did not. DVs were frequently found in genes not usually associated with the clinical syndrome. Patients recruited from primary referral centres were compared with those seen at higher-level research centres and a national clinical neurogenetic laboratory; rates of discovery were comparable, making selection bias unlikely and the results generalisable to clinical practice. We estimated penetrance of DVs using large-scale online genomic population databases and found 71 with evidence of reduced penetrance. Two DVs in the same patient were found more frequently than expected. These data should provide a basis for more informed counselling and clinical decision making.
Funder
Medical Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience,Psychiatry and Mental health,Molecular Biology
Reference32 articles.
1. Winblad B, Amouyel P, Andrieu S, Ballard C, Brayne C, Brodaty H, et al. Defeating Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: a priority for European science and society. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:455–532. 2. Hardy J, Selkoe DJ. The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease: progress and problems on the road to therapeutics. Science. 2002;297:353–6. 3. Bateman RJ, Xiong C, Benzinger TL, Fagan AM, Goate A, Fox NC, et al. Clinical and biomarker changes in dominantly inherited Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:795–804. 4. Irwin DJ, Cairns NJ, Grossman M, McMillan CT, Lee EB, Van Deerlin VM, et al. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: defining phenotypic diversity through personalized medicine. Acta Neuropathol. 2015;129:469–91. 5. Hensman Moss DJ, Poulter M, Beck J, Hehir J, Polke JM, Campbell T, et al. C9orf72 expansions are the most common genetic cause of Huntington disease phenocopies. Neurology. 2014;82:292–9.
Cited by
36 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|