When do we need to suspect maturity onset diabetes of the young in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?

ABSTRACT Objetivo: Maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY) patients have clinical heterogeneity as shown by many studies. Thus, often it is misdiagnosed to type 1 or type 2 diabetes(T2DM). The aim of this study is to evaluate MODY mutations in adult T2DM patients suspicious in terms of MODY, and to show clinical and laboratory differences between these two situations. Subjects and methods: In this study, we analyzed 72 type 2 diabetic patients and their relatives (35F/37M) who had been suspected for MODY and referred to genetic department for mutation analysis. The gene mutations for MODY have been assessed in the laboratory of Marmara University genetics. Totally 67 (32F/35M; median age 36.1) diabetic patients were analyzed for 7 MODY mutations. Twelve patients who have uncertain mutation (VUS) were excluded from study for further evaluation. MODY(+) (n:30) patients and T2DM patients (n:25) were compared for clinical and laboratory parameters. Results: In MODY(+) subjects, mutations in GCK (MODY 2) (n:12; 40%) were the most common followed by HNF4A (MODY 1) (n:4; 13.3%). Diabetes diagnosis age was younger in MODY(+) group but not statistically significant. Sixty-six percent of MODY(+) subjects had diabetes history at 3-consecutive generations in their family compared with 28% of T2DM patients statistically significant (p:0.006). Gender, BMI, C-peptide, HbA1c, lipid parameters, creatinine, GFR, microalbuminuria, vitamin D and calcium were not statistically different between the groups. Conclusion: According to present study results, MODY mutation positivity is most probable in young autoantibody (-) diabetic patients diagnosed before 30 years of age, who have first degree family history of diabetes.

Secondary findings in 622 Turkish clinical exome sequencing data.

CES (Clinical Exome Sequencing) is a method that we use to diagnose rare diseases with nonspesific clinical features. Besides primary indication for testing genetic information may be detected about diseases which have not yet emerged. ACMG guidelines recommend to report pathogenic variations in medically actionable 59 genes. In this study we evaluated CES data of 622 cases which were tested for various indications. According to ACMG recommendations 59 genes were screened for reportable variations. The detected variations were reviewed using distinct databases and ACMG variation classification guidelines. Among 622 cases 13 (2.1%) had reportable variations including oncogenetic, cardiogenetic disorders, and malignant hyperthermia susceptibility-related genes. In 15 cases (2.4%) heterozygous pathogenic and likely pathogenic variations were detected in genes showing autosomal recessive inheritance. Ten novel variations causing truncated protein or splicing defect were reported. We detected 11 variations having conflicting interpretations in databases and 30 novel variations, predicted as likely pathogenic via insilico analysis tools which further evaluations are needed. As to our knowledge this is the first study investigating secondary findings in Turkish population. To extract the information that may lead to prevent severe morbidities and mortalities from big data is a valuable and lifesaving effort. Results of this study will contrbute to existing knowledge about secondary findings in exome sequencing and will be a pioneer for studies in Turkish population.