Why the study?
Familial DCM is genetically heterogeneous with low diagnostic yields for individual genes beyond TTN, complicating diagnosis when targeted gene panels fail to identify a causative mutation.
Whole exome sequencing successfully identified a novel pathogenic RBM20 mutation in a family with severe dilated cardiomyopathy after standard targeted gene panels failed.
Background: Familial dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is genetically heterogeneous and is associated with mutations in at least 40 different genes. Apart from TTN encoding the giant protein Titin, none of these genes have an expected diagnostic yield of more than 5% complicating genetic diagnosis. Whole exome sequencing (WES) is a powerful alternative for the identification of the causal gene, however variant interpretation remains challenging. We report on WES in a large family with autosomal dominant DCM complicated by end stage heart failure and non-sustained ventricular arrhythmias in whom no causative mutation was identified using a targeted gene panel including 28 genes.Methods and results: WES was applied on 2 affected cousins. Stringent filtering of the identified genetic variants was performed including population variant frequencies, in silico analysis, orthologous and paralogous conservation. Subsequently Sanger sequencing was performed for 10 potential disease causing variants in order to confirm the presence of the variant and to evaluate co-segregation. Only one variant in exon 9 of the RBM20 gene (c.2714T > A, p.Met950Lys, NM_001334363) showed full co-segregation in the 7 affected family members resulting in a maximum 2-point LOD score of 2.1 and suggesting this as the pathogenic mutation responsible for the phenotype. Recently mutations in RBM20 have been linked to arrhythmogenic dilated cardiomyopathy caused by defective splicing of the giant sarcomere protein titin and abnormal calcium handling.Conclusions: We report the identification of a novel mutation in RBM20 by WES in a large pedigree with DCM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robyns et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: