Next-Generation Sequencing Applications for Inherited Retinal Diseases

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) represent a collection of phenotypically and genetically diverse conditions. IRDs phenotype(s) can be isolated to the eye or can involve multiple tissues. These conditions are associated with diverse forms of inheritance, and variants within the same gene often can be associated with multiple distinct phenotypes. Such aspects of the IRDs highlight the difficulty met when establishing a genetic diagnosis in patients. Here we provide an overview of cutting-edge next-generation sequencing techniques and strategies currently in use to maximise the effectivity of IRD gene screening. These techniques have helped researchers globally to find elusive causes of IRDs, including copy number variants, structural variants, new IRD genes and deep intronic variants, among others. Resolving a genetic diagnosis with thorough testing enables a more accurate diagnosis and more informed prognosis and should also provide information on inheritance patterns which may be of particular interest to patients of a child-bearing age. Given that IRDs are heritable conditions, genetic counselling may be offered to help inform family planning, carrier testing and prenatal screening. Additionally, a verified genetic diagnosis may enable access to appropriate clinical trials or approved medications that may be available for the condition.

Related collections

Most cited references 177

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

Sue Richards, Nazneen Aziz, Sherri Bale … (2015)

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.

0 comments Cited 7023 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies.

Sara Goodwin, John McPherson, W McCombie (2016)

Since the completion of the human genome project in 2003, extraordinary progress has been made in genome sequencing technologies, which has led to a decreased cost per megabase and an increase in the number and diversity of sequenced genomes. An astonishing complexity of genome architecture has been revealed, bringing these sequencing technologies to even greater advancements. Some approaches maximize the number of bases sequenced in the least amount of time, generating a wealth of data that can be used to understand increasingly complex phenotypes. Alternatively, other approaches now aim to sequence longer contiguous pieces of DNA, which are essential for resolving structurally complex regions. These and other strategies are providing researchers and clinicians a variety of tools to probe genomes in greater depth, leading to an enhanced understanding of how genome sequence variants underlie phenotype and disease.

0 comments Cited 699 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Sarah S Kalia, Kathy Adelman, Sherri J. Bale … (2017)

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to these recommendations is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.To promote standardized reporting of actionable information from clinical genomic sequencing, in 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a minimum list of genes to be reported as incidental or secondary findings. The goal was to identify and manage risks for selected highly penetrant genetic disorders through established interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The ACMG subsequently established the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group to develop a process for curating and updating the list over time. We describe here the new process for accepting and evaluating nominations for updates to the secondary findings list. We also report outcomes from six nominations received in the initial 15 months after the process was implemented. Applying the new process while upholding the core principles of the original policy statement resulted in the addition of four genes and removal of one gene; one gene did not meet criteria for inclusion. The updated secondary findings minimum list includes 59 medically actionable genes recommended for return in clinical genomic sequencing. We discuss future areas of focus, encourage continued input from the medical community, and call for research on the impact of returning genomic secondary findings.Genet Med 19 2, 249-255.

0 comments Cited 395 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Luca Agnelli: Role: Academic Editor

Giovanni Malerba: Role: Academic Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Mol Sci

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int J Mol Sci

Journal ID (publisher-id): ijms

Title: International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Publisher: MDPI

ISSN (Electronic): 1422-0067

Publication date (Electronic): 26 May 2021

Publication date Collection: June 2021

Volume: 22

Issue: 11

Electronic Location Identifier: 5684

Affiliations

The School of Genetics & Microbiology, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland; whelanl1@ 123456tcd.ie (L.W.); pete.humphries@ 123456tcd.ie (P.H.); jane.farrar@ 123456tcd.ie (G.J.F.)

Author notes

[* ]Correspondence: dockerya@ 123456tcd.ie

Author information

Adrian Dockery https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3423-2542

Laura Whelan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0537-4349

Article

Publisher ID: ijms-22-05684

DOI: 10.3390/ijms22115684

PMC ID: 8198572

PubMed ID: 34073611

SO-VID: cf487c2d-3700-4cb9-8b3d-531e5771de02

License:

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Next-Generation Sequencing Applications for Inherited Retinal Diseases

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Higher order chromatin architecture

Most cited references 177

Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies.

Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 175

Cited by 12

Most referenced authors 5,100