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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Procopio, Rebecca, Pulido, Jose S., Gunton, Kammi B., Syed, Zeba A., Lee, Daniel, Moster, Mark L., Sergott, Robert, Neidich, Julie A., Reynolds, Margaret M.
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