RESUMO
PURPOSE: To assess the likely pathogenic/pathogenic (LP/P) variants rates in Mendelian dementia genes and the moderate-to-strong risk factors rates in patients with Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: We included 700 patients in a prospective study and performed exome sequencing. A panel of 28 Mendelian and 6 risk-factor genes was interpreted and returned to patients. We built a framework for risk variant interpretation and risk gradation and assessed the detection rates among early-onset AD (EOAD, age of onset (AOO) ≤65 years, n = 608) depending on AOO and pedigree structure and late-onset AD (66 < AOO < 75, n = 92). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients carried a LP/P variant in a Mendelian gene (all with EOAD, 3.4%), 20 of 21 affected APP, PSEN1, or PSEN2. LP/P variant detection rates in EOAD ranged from 1.7% to 11.6% based on AOO and pedigree structure. Risk factors were found in 69.5% of the remaining 679 patients, including 83 (12.2%) being heterozygotes for rare risk variants, in decreasing order of frequency, in TREM2, ABCA7, ATP8B4, SORL1, and ABCA1, including 5 heterozygotes for multiple rare risk variants, suggesting non-monogenic inheritance, even in some autosomal-dominant-like pedigrees. CONCLUSION: We suggest that genetic screening should be proposed to all EOAD patients and should no longer be prioritized based on pedigree structure.
Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer , Sequenciamento do Exoma , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Testes Genéticos , Glicoproteínas de Membrana , Presenilina-2 , Receptores Imunológicos , Humanos , Doença de Alzheimer/genética , Doença de Alzheimer/diagnóstico , Testes Genéticos/métodos , Feminino , Masculino , Idoso , Fatores de Risco , Estudos Prospectivos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Presenilina-2/genética , Presenilina-1/genética , Linhagem , Idade de Início , Precursor de Proteína beta-Amiloide/genética , Idoso de 80 Anos ou maisRESUMO
BACKGROUND: While array-comparative genomic hybridization (a-CGH) and next-generation sequencing (NGS or exome) technologies have swiftly spread throughout the medical field, karyotype has gradually lost its leading role among genetic tests. Several international guidelines recommend starting with a-CGH screening then going on with exome analysis when investigating a patient with intellectual disability (ID) and no precise clinical diagnosis. A-CGH and whole exome sequencing increase etiologic diagnoses rate up to 30% in case of ID. However, physicians have to deal with the lack of qualitative information of the genome. Especially, exome and a-CGH analysis fail to detect chromosomal rearrangements because breakpoints are either located in introns or not associated with a gain or loss of genetic material. If these technologies cannot easily identify chromosomal translocations or inversions which sometimes split a gene, karyotype can. DISCUSSION: For the 5 cases described, karyotype provided the right diagnosis for a Mendelian disease while molecular analysis remained unsuccessful. We conclude that when a Mendelian disease is strongly suggested clinically, if molecular analysis is normal, it could be very useful to carry out a karyotype in order to demonstrate a chromosomal rearrangement involving the targeted gene. If this gene is disrupted, the physician can confirm the suspected disease and give appropriate genetic counseling. SUMMARY: This article aims at keeping in mind that karyotype, this old-fashioned genetic tool, can still remain powerful and useful within some genetic issues. Even in this modern period of whole exome sequencing, young geneticists should know that karyotype remains a powerful and cheap technology, available throughout the world and can still do a lot for families.