4.4 Article

Addition of H19 'Loss of Methylation Testing' for Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome (BWS) Increases the Diagnostic Yield

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 576-588

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.100005

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA54358]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R37CA054358, R01CA054358] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) is a clinical diagnosis; however, molecular confirmation via abnormal methylation of DMR2(LIT1) and/or DMR1(H19) has clinical utility due to epigenotype-tumor association. Despite the strong link between H19 hypermethylation and tumor risk, several diagnostic laboratories only test for hypomethylation of LIT1 We assessed the added diagnostic value of combined LIT1 and H19 testing in a large series of referred samples from 1298 patients, including 53 well-characterized patients from the St. Louis Children's Hospital BWS-Registry (validation samples) and 1245 consecutive nationwide referrals (practice samples). Methylation-sensitive enzymatic digestion with Southern hybridization assessed loss of normal imprinting. In the validation group, abnormal LIT1 hypomethylation was detected in 60% (32/52) of patients but LIT1/H19-combined testing was abnormal in 68% (36/53); sensitivity in the practice setting demonstrated 27% (342/1245) abnormal LIT1 and 32% (404/1245) abnormal LIT1/H19-combined. In addition, H19 methylation was abnormal in 7% of LIT1-normal patients. We observed absence of uniparental disomy (UPD) in 27% of combined LIT1/H19-abnormal samples, diagnostic of multilocus methylation abnormalities; in contrast to studies implicating that combined LIT1/H19 abnormalities are diagnostic of UPD. The overall low detection rate, even in validated patient samples and despite characterization of both loci and UPD status, emphasizes the importance of clinical diagnosis in BWS. (J Mol Diagn 2010, 12:576-588 DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.100005)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据