Diagnostic Genetic Testing for Monogenic Diabetes and Congenital Hyperinsulinemia

Author(s):  
Jayne A. L. Houghton
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (S 01) ◽  
pp. S1-S45
Author(s):  
S. von Spiczak ◽  
K.-M. Klein ◽  
G. Kluger ◽  
J. Lemke ◽  
B. Neubauer ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Emily Breidbart ◽  
Liyong Deng ◽  
Patricia Lanzano ◽  
Xiao Fan ◽  
Jiancheng Guo ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives There have been few large-scale studies utilizing exome sequencing for genetically undiagnosed maturity onset diabetes of the young (MODY), a monogenic form of diabetes that is under-recognized. We describe a cohort of 160 individuals with suspected monogenic diabetes who were genetically assessed for mutations in genes known to cause MODY. Methods We used a tiered testing approach focusing initially on GCK and HNF1A and then expanding to exome sequencing for those individuals without identified mutations in GCK or HNF1A. The average age of onset of hyperglycemia or diabetes diagnosis was 19 years (median 14 years) with an average HbA1C of 7.1%. Results Sixty (37.5%) probands had heterozygous likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in one of the MODY genes, 90% of which were in GCK or HNF1A. Less frequently, mutations were identified in PDX1, HNF4A, HNF1B, and KCNJ11. For those probands with available family members, 100% of the variants segregated with diabetes in the family. Cascade genetic testing in families identified 75 additional family members with a familial MODY mutation. Conclusions Our study is one of the largest and most ethnically diverse studies using exome sequencing to assess MODY genes. Tiered testing is an effective strategy to genetically diagnose atypical diabetes, and familial cascade genetic testing identified on average one additional family member with monogenic diabetes for each mutation identified in a proband.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Scott Lowery ◽  
John R. Dehnel ◽  
G. Bradley Schaefer ◽  
Sami H. Uwaydat

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Craufurd ◽  
Rhona MacLeod ◽  
Marina Frontali ◽  
Oliver Quarrell ◽  
Emilia K Bijlsma ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 225-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip B. Mitchell ◽  
Bettina Meiser ◽  
Alex Wilde ◽  
Janice Fullerton ◽  
Jennifer Donald ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Colclough ◽  
Sian Ellard ◽  
Andrew Hattersley ◽  
Kashyap Patel

At present, outside of infancy, genetic testing for monogenic diabetes is typically for mutations in MODY genes that predominantly result in isolated diabetes. Monogenic diabetes syndromes are usually only tested when this is supported by specific syndromic clinical features. It is not known how frequently patients with suspected MODY have a mutation in a monogenic syndromic diabetes gene and thus missed by present testing regimes. We performed<b> </b>genetic testing of 27 monogenic diabetes genes (including 18 associated with syndromic diabetes) for 1280 patients with a clinical suspicion of MODY from routine clinical care that were not suspected of having monogenic syndromic diabetes. We confirmed monogenic diabetes in 297 (23%) patients. Mutations in 7 different syndromic diabetes genes accounted for 19% (95%CI 15-24%) of all monogenic diabetes. The mitochondrial m.3243A>G and mutations in <i>HNF1B</i> were responsible for the majority of mutations in syndromic diabetes genes. They were also the 4<sup>th</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> most common causes of monogenic diabetes overall. These patients lacked typical features and their diabetes phenotypes overlapped with non-syndromic monogenic diabetes patients. Syndromic monogenic diabetes genes (particularly m.3243A>G and <i>HNF1B</i>) should be routinely tested in patients with suspected MODY that do not have typical features of a genetic syndrome.


2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 357-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Horton ◽  
Benjamin Bell ◽  
Angela Fenwick ◽  
Anneke M Lucassen

We discuss a case where medically optimal investigations of health problems in a donor-conceived child would require their egg donor to participate in genetic testing. We argue that it would be justified to contact the egg donor to ask whether she would consider this, despite her indicating on a historical consent form that she did not wish to take part in future research and that she did not wish to be informed if she was found to be a carrier of a ‘harmful inherited condition’. We suggest that we cannot conjecture what her current answer might be if, by participating in clinical genetic testing, she might help reach a diagnosis for the donor-conceived child. At the point that she made choices regarding future contact, it was not yet evident that the interests of the donor-conceived child might be compromised by her answers, as it was not foreseen that the egg donor’s genome might one day have the potential to enable diagnosis for this child. Fertility consent forms tend to be conceptualised as representing incontrovertible historical boundaries, but we argue that rapid evolution in genomic practice means that consent in such cases is better seen as an ongoing and dynamic process. It cannot be possible to compel the donor to aid in the diagnosis of the donor-conceived child, but she should be given the opportunity to do so.


Author(s):  
Rochelle N. Naylor ◽  
Siri Atma W. Greeley ◽  
Elbert S. Huang

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document