4.4 Article

Complications of whole-exome sequencing for causal gene discovery in primary platelet secretion defects

期刊

HAEMATOLOGICA
卷 104, 期 10, 页码 2084-2090

出版社

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2018.204990

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bayer Hemophilia Award Program (BHAP) 2011-Special Project Award
  2. BHAP 2012-Early Career Award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Primary platelet secretion defects constitute a heterogeneous group of functional defects characterized by reduced platelet granule secretion upon stimulation by different agonists. The clinical and laboratory heterogeneity of primary platelet secretion defects warrants a tailored approach. We performed a pilot study in order to develop DNA sequence analysis pipelines for gene discovery and to create a list of candidate causal genes for platelet secretion defects. Whole-exome sequencing analysis of 14 unrelated Italian patients with primary secretion defects and 16 controls was performed on Illumina HiSeq. Variant prioritization was carried out using two filtering approaches: identification of rare, potentially damaging variants in platelet candidate genes or by selecting singletons. To corroborate the results, exome sequencing was applied in a family in which platelet secretion defects and a bleeding diathesis were present. Platelet candidate gene analysis revealed gene defects in 10/14 patients, which included ADRA2A, ARHGAP1, DIAPH1, EXOC1, FCGR2A, ITPR1, LTBP1, PTPN7, PTPN12, PRKACG, PRKCD, RAP1GAP, STXBP5L, and VWF. The analysis of singletons identified additional gene defects in PLG and PHACTR2 in two other patients. The family analysis confirmed a missense variant p.D1144N in the STXBP5L gene and p.P83H in the KCNMB3 gene as potentially causal. In summary, exome sequencing revealed potential causal variants in 12 of 14 patients with primary platelet secretion defects, highlighting the limitations of the genomic approaches for causal gene identification in this heterogeneous clinical and laboratory phenotype.

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