ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2014
Points to consider in the clinical use of NGS panels for mitochondrial disease: an analysis of gene inclusion and consent forms.
Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of multiomic mass spectrometry approaches for the evaluation of human health following environmental exposure.Molecular omics · 2024Review
- Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Tool for Personalized Drug Therapy Optimization.Pharmaceutics · 2020Review
- PanelApp crowdsources expert knowledge to establish consensus diagnostic gene panels.Nature genetics · 2019Article
- Horizon Scan Of Clinical Laboratories Offering Pharmacogenetic Testing.Health affairs (Project Hope) · 2018Article
- Whole-exome Sequencing Helps the Diagnosis and Treatment in Children with Neurodevelopmental Delay Accompanied Unexplained Dyspnea.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- My Identical Twin Sequenced our Genome.Journal of genetic counseling · 2017Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology: Genetic Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Cancer Classification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- Unsolicited findings of next-generation sequencing for tumor analysis within a Dutch consortium: clinical daily practice reconsidered.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2016Article
- A review of consent practices and perspectives for pharmacogenetic testing.Pharmacogenomics · 2016Review
- Review of Commercially Available Epilepsy Genetic Panels.Journal of genetic counseling · 2016Article
- A protocol for the identification and validation of novel genetic causes of kidney disease.BMC nephrology · 2015Article
- Panel-based genetic diagnostic testing for inherited eye diseases is highly accurate and reproducible, and more sensitive for variant detection, than exome sequencing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Article
- Incidental Findings with Genomic Testing: Implications for Genetic Counseling Practice.Current genetic medicine reportsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mitochondrial next generation sequencing (NGS) panels offer single-step analysis of the numerous nuclear genes involved in the structure, function, and maintenance of mitochondria. However, the complexities of mitochondrial biology and genetics raise points for consideration in clinical use of these tests. To understand the current status of mitochondrial genetic testing, we assessed the gene offerings and consent forms of mitochondrial NGS panels available from seven US-based clinical laboratories. The NGS panels varied markedly in number of genes (101-1204 genes), and the proportion of genes causing "classic" mitochondrial diseases and their phenocopies ranged widely between labs (18 %-94 % of panel contents). All panels included genes not associated with classic mitochondrial diseases (6 %-28 % of panel contents), including genes causing adult-onset neurodegenerative disorders, cancer predisposition, and other genetic syndromes or inborn errors of metabolism. Five of the panels included genes that are not listed in OMIM to be associated with a disease phenotype (5 %-49 % of panel contents). None of the consent documents reviewed had options for patient preference regarding receipt of incidental findings. These findings raise points of discussion applicable to mitochondrial diagnostics, but also to the larger arenas of exome and genome sequencing, including the need to consider the boundaries between clinical and research testing, the necessity of appropriate informed consent, and the responsibilities of clinical laboratories and clinicians. Based on these findings, we recommend careful evaluation by laboratories of the genes offered on NGS panels, clear communication of the predicted phenotypes, and revised consent forms to allow patients to make choices about receiving incidental findings. We hope that our analysis and recommendations will help to maximize the considerable clinical utility of NGS panels for the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.