No abstract

Intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) are protein regions that are unable to fold into stable tertiary structures, enabling their involvement in key signaling and regulatory functions via dynamic interactions with diverse binding partners. An understanding of IDRs and their association with biological function may help elucidate the pathogenesis of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). The main focus of this work was to investigate the degree of disorder in 14 proteins implicated in IRDs and their relationship with the number of pathogenic missense variants. Metapredict, an accurate, high-performance predictor that reproduces consensus disorder scores, was used to probe the degree of disorder as a function of the amino acid sequence. Publicly available data on gnomAD and ClinVar was used to analyze the number of pathogenic missense variants. We show that proteins with an over-representation of missense variation exhibit a high degree of disorder, and proteins with a high amount of disorder tolerate a higher degree of missense variation. These proteins also exhibit a lower amount of pathogenic missense variants with respect to total missense variants. These data suggest that protein function may be related to the overall level of disorder and could be used to refine variant interpretation in IRDs.

No abstract

Background/purpose: A comprehensive review of the degree of disorder in all genes in the Retinal Information Network (RetNet) Database is implicated in inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). Their association with a missense variation was evaluated. Methods: IRD genes from RetNet were included in this study. Publicly available data on the genome aggregation database (gnomAD) were used to analyze the number of total and pathogenic missense variants. Metapredict, an accurate and high-performance predictor that reproduces consensus disorder scores, was used to calculate disorder. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were percent disorder, percent pathogenicity, number of total missense variants, and percent total missense variation. Results: We included 287 RetNet genes with relevant data available from gnomAD. Mean percent disorder was 26.3% ± 26.0%, mean percent pathogenicity was 5.2% ± 11.0%, mean number of total missense variants was 424.4 ± 450.0, and mean percent total missense was 50.0% ± 13.4%. The percent disorder followed a bimodal distribution with the highest number of occurrences in the 0 to 10th disorder decile. The five outlier proteins in the first disorder decile with a higher-than-expected number of total missense variation were identified (HMCN1, ADGRV, USH2A, DYNC2H1, LAMA1, and SLC38A8). When excluded, % total missense was significantly associated with percent disorder (R = 0.238 and p = 0.0240). Conclusions: This novel study examining all genes implicated in IRDs found that the majority genes had a disorder in the 0 to 10th decile and were relatively intolerant to missense variation. This may have future utility when interpreting variants of undetermined significance and missense variants.

Signal peptide (SP) mutations are an infrequent cause of inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). We report the genes currently associated with an IRD that possess an SP sequence and assess the prevalence of these variants in a multi-institutional retrospective review of clinical genetic testing records. The online databases, RetNet and UniProt, were used to determine which IRD genes possess a SP. A multicenter retrospective review was performed to retrieve cases of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of an IRD and a concurrent SP variant. In silico evaluations were performed with MutPred, MutationTaster, and the signal peptide prediction tool, SignalP 6.0. SignalP 6.0 was further used to determine the locations of the three SP regions in each gene: the N-terminal region, hydrophobic core, and C-terminal region. Fifty-six (56) genes currently associated with an IRD possess a SP sequence. Based on the records review, a total of 505 variants were present in the 56 SP-possessing genes. Six (1.18%) of these variants were within the SP sequence and likely associated with the patients’ disease based on in silico predictions and clinical correlation. These six SP variants were in the CRB1 (early-onset retinal dystrophy), NDP (familial exudative vitreoretinopathy) (FEVR), FZD4 (FEVR), EYS (retinitis pigmentosa), and RS1 (X-linked juvenile retinoschisis) genes. It is important to be aware of SP mutations as an exceedingly rare cause of IRDs. Future studies will help refine our understanding of their role in each disease process and assess therapeutic approaches.

No abstract

No abstract

Importance: The options for genetic testing continue to grow for ocular conditions, including optic atrophy, anterior segment dysgenesis, cataracts, corneal dystrophy, nystagmus, and glaucoma. Gene panels can vary in content and coverage, as we and others have evaluated in inherited retinal disease (IRD). Objective: To describe gene panel testing options for inherited eye disease phenotypes and their differences. This review is important for making diagnostic decisions. Evidence review: A licensed, certified genetic counselor (RP) used Concert Genetics and the search terms optic atrophy, corneal dystrophy, cataract, glaucoma, anterior segment dysgenesis, microphthalmia/anophthalmia, and nystagmus to identify available testing options performed by CLIA-certified commercial genetic testing laboratories. Other co-authors were surveyed with respect to genetic panels used for the indications of interest. Ophthalmic panels were then compared using Concert Genetics in addition to their own websites. Findings: Panels from each clinical category were included and summarized. This comparison highlighted the differences and similarities between panels so that clinicians can make informed decisions. Conclusions: Access to genetic testing is increasing. The diagnostic yield of genetic testing is increasing. Each panel is different, so phenotyping or characterizing clinical characteristics that may help predict a specific genotype, as well as pre-test hypotheses regarding a genotype, should shape the choice of panels.