Cargando…
Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10047970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36981008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes14030738 |
_version_ | 1785014060997148672 |
---|---|
author | Procopio, Rebecca Pulido, Jose S. Gunton, Kammi B. Syed, Zeba A. Lee, Daniel Moster, Mark L. Sergott, Robert Neidich, Julie A. Reynolds, Margaret M. |
author_facet | Procopio, Rebecca Pulido, Jose S. Gunton, Kammi B. Syed, Zeba A. Lee, Daniel Moster, Mark L. Sergott, Robert Neidich, Julie A. Reynolds, Margaret M. |
author_sort | Procopio, Rebecca |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10047970 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100479702023-03-29 Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review Procopio, Rebecca Pulido, Jose S. Gunton, Kammi B. Syed, Zeba A. Lee, Daniel Moster, Mark L. Sergott, Robert Neidich, Julie A. Reynolds, Margaret M. Genes (Basel) Brief Report 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. MDPI 2023-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10047970/ /pubmed/36981008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes14030738 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/). |
spellingShingle | Brief Report Procopio, Rebecca Pulido, Jose S. Gunton, Kammi B. Syed, Zeba A. Lee, Daniel Moster, Mark L. Sergott, Robert Neidich, Julie A. Reynolds, Margaret M. Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review |
title | Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Comparing Gene Panels for Non-Retinal Indications: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | comparing gene panels for non-retinal indications: a systematic review |
topic | Brief Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10047970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36981008 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes14030738 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT procopiorebecca comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT pulidojoses comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT guntonkammib comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT syedzebaa comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT leedaniel comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT mostermarkl comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT sergottrobert comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT neidichjuliea comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview AT reynoldsmargaretm comparinggenepanelsfornonretinalindicationsasystematicreview |