Genomics & Informatics

Korea Genome Organization (한국유전체학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Whole-exome sequencing analysis in a case of primary congenital glaucoma due to the partial uniparental isodisomy

  • Received : 2021.08.06
  • Accepted : 2022.08.29
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

We described a clinical, laboratory, and genetic presentation of a pathogenic variant of the CYP1B1 gene through a report of a case of primary congenital glaucoma and a trio analysis of this candidate variant in the family with the Sanger sequencing method and eventually completed our study with the secondary/incidental findings. This study reports a rare case of primary congenital glaucoma, an 8-year-old female child with a negative family history of glaucoma and uncontrolled intraocular pressure. This case's whole-exome sequencing data analysis presents a homozygous pathogenic single nucleotide variant in the CYP1B1 gene (NM_000104:exon3:c.G1103A:p.R368H). At the same time, this pathogenic variant was obtained as a heterozygous state in her unaffected father but not her mother. The diagnosis was made based on molecular findings of whole-exome sequencing data analysis. Therefore, the clinical reports and bioinformatics findings supported the relation between the candidate pathogenic variant and the disease. However, it should not be forgotten that primary congenital glaucoma is not peculiar to the CYP1B1 gene. Since the chance of developing autosomal recessive disorders with low allele frequency and unrelated parents is extraordinary in offspring. However, further data analysis of whole-exome sequencing and Sanger sequencing method were applied to obtain the type of mutation and how it was carried to the offspring.

Keywords

References

  1. Wiggs JL, Pasquale LR. Genetics of glaucoma. Hum Mol Genet 2017;26:R21-R27. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddx184
  2. Suri F, Chitsazian F, Khoramian-Tusi B, Amini H, Yazdani S, Nilforooshan N, et al. Sex bias in primary congenital glaucoma patients with and without CYP1B1 mutations. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2009;4:75-78.
  3. Chouiter L, Nadifi S. Analysis of CYP1B1 gene mutations in patients with primary congenital glaucoma. J Pediatr Genet 2017;6:205-214. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1602695
  4. Hamamy H. Consanguineous marriages: preconception consultation in primary health care settings. J Community Genet 2012;3:185-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-011-0072-y
  5. Bjorn N, Pradhananga S, Sigurgeirsson B, Lundberg J, Green H, Sahlen P. Comparison of variant calls from whole genome and whole exome sequencing data using matched samples. J Next Gener Seq Appl 2018;5:1.
  6. Peche N, Eule JC. Intraocular pressure measurements in cattle, sheep, and goats with 2 different types of tonometers. Can J Vet Res 2018;82:208-215.
  7. Chacon Cortes DF, Griffiths L. Methods for extracting genomic DNA from whole blood samples: current perspectives. J Biorepos Sci Appl Med 2014;2014:1-9.
  8. Wingett SW, Andrews S. FastQ Screen: a tool for multi-genome mapping and quality control. F1000Res 2018;7:1338. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15931.1
  9. Li H, Handsaker B, Wysoker A, Fennell T, Ruan J, Homer N, et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 2009;25:2078-2079. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352
  10. Wood AR, Perry JR, Tanaka T, Hernandez DG, Zheng HF, Melzer D, et al. Imputation of variants from the 1000 Genomes Project modestly improves known associations and can identify low-frequency variant-phenotype associations undetected by HapMap based imputation. PLoS One 2013;8:e64343. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064343
  11. Panagiotou OA, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Genome-wide significant associations for variants with minor allele frequency of 5% or less: an overview: a HuGE review. Am J Epidemiol 2010;172:869-889. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq234
  12. Li Q, Wang K. InterVar: clinical interpretation of genetic variants by the 2015 ACMG-AMP guidelines. Am J Hum Genet 2017;100:267-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.004
  13. Kopanos C, Tsiolkas V, Kouris A, Chapple CE, Albarca Aguilera M, Meyer R, et al. VarSome: the human genomic variant search engine. Bioinformatics 2019;35:1978-1980. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty897
  14. Capriotti E, Calabrese R, Fariselli P, Martelli PL, Altman RB, Casadio R. WS-SNPs&GO: a web server for predicting the deleterious effect of human protein variants using functional annotation. BMC Genomics 2013;14 Suppl 3:S6.
  15. Choi Y, Chan AP. PROVEAN web server: a tool to predict the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels. Bioinformatics 2015;31:2745-2747. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv195
  16. Clark WT, Kasak L, Bakolitsa C, Hu Z, Andreoletti G, Babbi G, et al. Assessment of predicted enzymatic activity of alpha-N-acetylglucosaminidase variants of unknown significance for CAGI 2016. Hum Mutat 2019;40:1519-1529. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.23875
  17. Bhartiya D, Scaria V. Genomic variations in non-coding RNAs: structure, function and regulation. Genomics 2016;107:59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2016.01.005
  18. Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 2015;17:405-424. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30
  19. Lopez-Garrido MP, Campos-Mollo E, Harto MA, Escribano J. Primary congenital glaucoma caused by the homozygous F261L CYP1B1 mutation and paternal isodisomy of chromosome 2. Clin Genet 2009;76:552-557. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-0004.2009.01242.x
  20. Oakey RJ, Beechey CV. Imprinted genes: identification by chromosome rearrangements and post-genomic strategies. Trends Genet 2002;18:359-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02708-7
  21. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, Kalia SS, Korf BR, Martin CL, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med 2013;15: 565-574. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.73
  22. Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Riley GR, Jang W, Rubinstein WS, Church DM, et al. ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:D980-D985. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1113
  23. Delanne J, Nambot S, Chassagne A, Putois O, Pelissier A, Peyron C, et al. Secondary findings from whole-exome/genome sequencing evaluating stakeholder perspectives. a review of the literature. Eur J Med Genet 2019;62:103529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.08.010
  24. Abu-Amero KK, Edward DP. Primary congenital glaucoma. In: Gene Reviews (Adams MP, Everman DB, Mirzaa GM, Pagon RA, Wallace SE, Bean LJ, et al., eds.). Seattle: University of Washington, Seattle, 2017.
  25. Suri F, Yazdani S, Elahi E. Glaucoma in iran and contributions of studies in iran to the understanding of the etiology of glaucoma. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2015;10:68-76. https://doi.org/10.4103/2008-322X.156120
  26. Labrijn-Marks I, Somers-Bolman GM, In't Groen SL, Hoogeveen-Westerveld M, Kroos MA, Ala-Mello S, et al. Segmental and total uniparental isodisomy (UPiD) as a disease mechanism in autosomal recessive lysosomal disorders: evidence from SNP arrays. Eur J Hum Genet 2019;27:919-927. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0348-y
  27. Alsubait A, Aldossary W, Rashid M, Algamdi A, Alrfaei BM. CYP1B1 gene: implications in glaucoma and cancer. J Cancer 2020;11:4652-4661. https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.42669