Cargando…

Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes

BACKGROUND: In the field of movement disorders, what you see (phenotype) is seldom what you get (genotype). Whereas 1 phenotype was previously associated to 1 gene, the advent of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated an exponential increase in disease‐causing genes and genotype–phenotype...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gannamani, Rahul, van der Veen, Sterre, van Egmond, Martje, de Koning, Tom J., Tijssen, Marina A.J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8015914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33816658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13163
_version_ 1783673766614663168
author Gannamani, Rahul
van der Veen, Sterre
van Egmond, Martje
de Koning, Tom J.
Tijssen, Marina A.J.
author_facet Gannamani, Rahul
van der Veen, Sterre
van Egmond, Martje
de Koning, Tom J.
Tijssen, Marina A.J.
author_sort Gannamani, Rahul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In the field of movement disorders, what you see (phenotype) is seldom what you get (genotype). Whereas 1 phenotype was previously associated to 1 gene, the advent of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated an exponential increase in disease‐causing genes and genotype–phenotype correlations, and the “one‐phenotype‐many‐genes” paradigm has become prominent. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the “one‐phenotype‐many‐genes” paradigm by discussing the main challenges, perspectives on how to address them, and future directions. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of the various aspects involved in identifying the underlying molecular cause of a movement disorder phenotype. RESULTS: The notable challenges are (1) the lack of gold standards, overlap in clinical spectrum of different movement disorders, and variability in the interpretation of classification systems; (2) selecting which patients benefit from genetic tests and the choice of genetic testing; (3) problems in the variant interpretation guidelines; (4) the filtering of variants associated with disease; and (5) the lack of standardized, complete, and up‐to‐date gene lists. Perspectives to address these include (1) deep phenotyping and genotype–phenotype integration, (2) adherence to phenotype‐specific diagnostic algorithms, (3) implementation of current and complementary bioinformatic tools, (4) a clinical‐molecular diagnosis through close collaboration between clinicians and genetic laboratories, and (5) ongoing curation of gene lists and periodic reanalysis of genetic sequencing data. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapidly emerging possibilities of NGS, there are still many steps to take to improve the genetic diagnostic yield. Future directions, including post‐NGS phenotyping and cohort analyses enriched by genotype–phenotype integration and gene networks, ought to be pursued to accelerate identification of disease‐causing genes and further improve our understanding of disease biology.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8015914
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80159142021-04-02 Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes Gannamani, Rahul van der Veen, Sterre van Egmond, Martje de Koning, Tom J. Tijssen, Marina A.J. Mov Disord Clin Pract Reviews BACKGROUND: In the field of movement disorders, what you see (phenotype) is seldom what you get (genotype). Whereas 1 phenotype was previously associated to 1 gene, the advent of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated an exponential increase in disease‐causing genes and genotype–phenotype correlations, and the “one‐phenotype‐many‐genes” paradigm has become prominent. OBJECTIVES: To highlight the “one‐phenotype‐many‐genes” paradigm by discussing the main challenges, perspectives on how to address them, and future directions. METHODS: We performed a scoping review of the various aspects involved in identifying the underlying molecular cause of a movement disorder phenotype. RESULTS: The notable challenges are (1) the lack of gold standards, overlap in clinical spectrum of different movement disorders, and variability in the interpretation of classification systems; (2) selecting which patients benefit from genetic tests and the choice of genetic testing; (3) problems in the variant interpretation guidelines; (4) the filtering of variants associated with disease; and (5) the lack of standardized, complete, and up‐to‐date gene lists. Perspectives to address these include (1) deep phenotyping and genotype–phenotype integration, (2) adherence to phenotype‐specific diagnostic algorithms, (3) implementation of current and complementary bioinformatic tools, (4) a clinical‐molecular diagnosis through close collaboration between clinicians and genetic laboratories, and (5) ongoing curation of gene lists and periodic reanalysis of genetic sequencing data. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rapidly emerging possibilities of NGS, there are still many steps to take to improve the genetic diagnostic yield. Future directions, including post‐NGS phenotyping and cohort analyses enriched by genotype–phenotype integration and gene networks, ought to be pursued to accelerate identification of disease‐causing genes and further improve our understanding of disease biology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8015914/ /pubmed/33816658 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13163 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Reviews
Gannamani, Rahul
van der Veen, Sterre
van Egmond, Martje
de Koning, Tom J.
Tijssen, Marina A.J.
Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes
title Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes
title_full Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes
title_fullStr Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes
title_full_unstemmed Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes
title_short Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes
title_sort challenges in clinicogenetic correlations: one phenotype – many genes
topic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8015914/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33816658
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13163
work_keys_str_mv AT gannamanirahul challengesinclinicogeneticcorrelationsonephenotypemanygenes
AT vanderveensterre challengesinclinicogeneticcorrelationsonephenotypemanygenes
AT vanegmondmartje challengesinclinicogeneticcorrelationsonephenotypemanygenes
AT dekoningtomj challengesinclinicogeneticcorrelationsonephenotypemanygenes
AT tijssenmarinaaj challengesinclinicogeneticcorrelationsonephenotypemanygenes