Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30548430›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2019

Clinical implementation of gene panel testing for lysosomal storage diseases.

Alexander Gheldof, Sara Seneca, Katrien Stouffs, Willy Lissens, Anna Jansen, Hilde Laeremans, Patrick Verloo, An-Sofie Schoonjans, Marije Meuwissen, Diana Barca and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alexander GheldofCenter for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8320-1961
Sara SenecaCenter for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Katrien StouffsCenter for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Willy LissensCenter for Medical Genetics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Anna JansenPaediatric Neurology Unit, Department of Paediatrics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Hilde LaeremansCentre de dépistage néonatal de l'ULB, Brussels, Belgium.
Patrick VerlooDepartment of Pediatrics, Ghent University and Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
An-Sofie SchoonjansDepartment of Pediatric Neurology, University Hospital Antwerp (UZA), Antwerp, Belgium.
Marije MeuwissenDepartment of Medical Genetics, University Hospital Antwerp (UZA), Antwerp, Belgium.
Diana BarcaClinic of Pediatric Neurology, "Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia" Clinical Psychiatric Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Geert MartensVUB Metabolomics Platform, Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Laboratory for Molecular Diagnostics, AZ Delta Roeselare, Roeselare, Belgium.
Linda De MeirleirPaediatric Neurology Unit, Department of Paediatrics, UZ Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Vrije Universiteit Brussel · BEAntwerp University Hospital · BEUniversitair Ziekenhuis Brussel · BECarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROGhent University Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cells, CulturedFibroblastsGenetic TestingHumansImmunoassayLysosomal Storage DiseasesMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesSequence Analysis, DNA4MU-based enzymatic testingdiagnostic testinggene panel sequencinglysosomal storage diseasenext-generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID30548430
PMCPMC6393649
OpenAlexW2905553055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.