BackgroundMutations in the GJB2 gene have been established as a major cause of inherited non syndromic deafness in different populations. A high number of sequence variations have been described in the GJB2 gene and the associated pathogenic effects are not always clearly established. The prevalence of a number of mutations is known to be population specific, and therefore population specific testing should be a prerequisite step when molecular diagnosis is offered. Moreover, population studies are needed to determine the contribution of GJB2 variants to deafness. We present our findings from the molecular diagnostic screening of the GJB2 and GJB6 genes over a three year period, together with a population-based study of GJB2 variants.Methods and resultsMolecular studies were performed using denaturing High Performance Liquid Chromatograghy (DHPLC) and sequencing of the GJB2 gene. Over the last 3 years we have studied 159 families presenting sensorineural hearing loss, including 84 with non syndromic, stable, bilateral deafness. Thirty families were genotyped with causative mutations. In parallel, we have performed a molecular epidemiology study on more than 3000 dried blood spots and established the frequency of the GJB2 variants in our population. Finally, we have compared the prevalence of the variants in the hearing impaired population with the general population.ConclusionAlthough a high heterogeneity of sequence variation was observed in patients and controls, the 35delG mutation remains the most common pathogenic mutation in our population. Genetic counseling is dependent on the knowledge of the pathogenicity of the mutations and remains difficult in a number of cases. By comparing the sequence variations observed in hearing impaired patients with those sequence variants observed in general population, from the same ethnic background, we show that the M34T, V37I and R127H variants can not be responsible for profound or severe deafness.
Diagnostic testing for USH1 is feasible with a high rate of detection and can be made more efficient by selecting a candidate gene by preliminary linkage and haplotype analysis.
Over the 4 years of a diagnostic service offering USH1 patient testing, pathogenic genotypes were identified in most cases (>90%). The complexity and heterogeneity of mutations reinforces the need for a comprehensive approach. Because 32% of the mutations are newly described, the results show that a screening strategy based on known mutations would have solved less than 55% of the cases.
Enrichment capture methods for NGS are widely used, however, they evolve rapidly and it is necessary to periodically measure their strengths and weaknesses before transfer to diagnostic services. We assessed two recently released custom DNA solution-capture enrichment methods for NGS, namely Illumina NRCCE and Agilent SureSelectQXT, against a reference method NimbleGen SeqCap EZ Choice on a similar gene panel, sharing 678 kb and 110 genes. Two Illumina MiSeq runs of 12 samples each have been performed, for each of the three methods, using the same 24 patients (affected with sensorineural disorders). Technical outcomes have been computed and compared, including depth and evenness of coverage, enrichment in targeted regions, performance in GC-rich regions and ability to generate consistent variant datasets. While we show that the three methods resulted in suitable datasets for standard DNA variant discovery, we describe significant differences between the results for the above parameters. NimbleGen offered the best depth of coverage and evenness, while NRCCE showed the highest on target levels but high duplicate rates. SureSelectQXT showed an overall quality close to that of NimbleGen. The new methods exhibit reduced preparation time but behave differently. These findings will guide laboratories in their choice of library enrichment approach.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.