ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019
Clinical implementation of gene panel testing for lysosomal storage diseases.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multi-omics-empowered framework for precision diagnosis and treatment of lysosomal diseases.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2025Review
- SplenoMegaly study (SMS): exploring the etiologies for "unexplained" splenomegalies in the real world.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2025Observational
- Assessment of genes involved in lysosomal diseases using the ClinGen clinical validity framework.Molecular genetics and metabolism · 2024Article
- Development, validation and application of single molecule molecular inversion probe based novel integrated genetic screening method for 29 common lysosomal storage disorders in India.Human genomics · 2024Article
- Long-range PCR in next generation sequencing: A low cost approach for large & complex genes.The Indian journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Clinical management and diagnosis of CLN2 disease: consensus of the Brazilian experts group.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2023Article
- Mass spectrometry-based proteomics in neurodegenerative lysosomal storage disorders.Molecular omics · 2022Review
- Contribution of Whole-Genome Sequencing and Transcript Analysis to Decipher Retinal Diseases Associated withInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Hematological Findings in Lysosomal Storage Disorders: A Perspective from the Medical Laboratory.EJIFCC · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive, Targeted NGS Approach to Assessing Molecular Diagnosis of Lysosomal Storage Diseases.Genes · 2021Article
- Review
- Next-Generation Molecular Investigations in Lysosomal Diseases: Clinical Integration of a Comprehensive Targeted Panel.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Review
- A perspective on research, diagnosis, and management of lysosomal storage disorders in Colombia.Heliyon · 2020Review
- Early detection of lysosomal diseases by screening of cases of idiopathic splenomegaly and/or thrombocytopenia with a next-generation sequencing gene panel.JIMD reports · 2020Article
- Clinical implementation of gene panel testing for lysosomal storage diseases.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe diagnostic workup in patients with a clinical suspicion of lysosomal storage diseases (LSD) is often difficult due to the variability in the clinical phenotype. The gold standard for diagnosis of LSDs consists of enzymatic testing. However, due to the sequential nature of this methodology and inconsistent genotype-phenotype correlations of certain LSDs, finding a diagnosis can be challenging.
methodWe developed and clinically implemented a gene panel covering 50 genes known to cause LSDs when mutated. Over a period of 18 months, we analyzed 150 patients who were referred for LSD testing and compared these results with the data of patients who were previously enrolled in a scheme of classical biochemical testing.
resultsOur panel was able to determine the molecular cause of the disease in 22 cases (15%), representing an increase in diagnostic yield compared to biochemical tests developed for 21 LSDs (4.6%). We were furthermore able to redirect the diagnosis of a mucolipidosis patient who was initially suspected to be affected with galactosialidosis. Several patients were identified as being affected with neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis, which cannot readily be detected by enzyme testing. Finally, several carriers of pathogenic mutations in LSD genes related to the disease phenotype were identified as well, thus potentially increasing the diagnostic yield of the panel as heterozygous deletions cannot be detected.
conclusionWe show that the implementation of a gene panel for LSD diagnostics results in an increased yield in comparison to classical biochemical testing. As the panel is able to cover a wider range of diseases, we propose to implement this methodology as a first-tier test in cases of an aspecific LSD presentation, while enzymatic testing remains the first choice in patients with a more distinctive clinical presentation. Positive panel results should however still be enzymatically confirmed whenever possible.
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.