Key result
Targeted deep next-generation sequencing revealed potential somatic missense mutations in 12% of atrial fibrillation patients versus 11% of controls (P=1), with no pathogenic mutations confirmed.
Why the study?
Does targeted deep sequencing identify atrial somatic mutations in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without?
Case-Control (n=34)
Does targeted deep sequencing identify atrial somatic mutations in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to those without?
High-depth next-generation sequencing found no definitive evidence of pathogenic atrial somatic mutations in AF patients, indicating that somatic mosaicism is unlikely to play a prominent role in AF pathogenesis.
Somatic mosaicism unlikely in AF; leaves open larger studies before excluding rare contributions or altering practice.
BACKGROUND: Studies of ≤15 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients have identified atrial-specific mutations within connexin genes, suggesting that somatic mutations may account for sporadic cases of the arrhythmia. We sought to identify atrial somatic mutations among patients with and without AF using targeted deep next-generation sequencing of 560 genes, including genetic culprits implicated in AF, the Mendelian cardiomyopathies and channelopathies, and all ion channels within the genome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Targeted gene capture and next-generation sequencing were performed on DNA from lymphocytes and left atrial appendages of 34 patients (25 with AF). Twenty AF patients had undergone cardiac surgery exclusively for pulmonary vein isolation and 17 had no structural heart disease. Sequence alignment and variant calling were performed for each atrial-lymphocyte pair using the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner, the Genome Analysis Toolkit, and MuTect packages. Next-generation sequencing yielded a median 265-fold coverage depth (interquartile range, 64-369). Comparison of the 3 million base pairs from each atrial-lymphocyte pair revealed a single potential somatic missense mutation in 3 AF patients and 2 in a single control (12 versus 11%; P=1). All potential discordant variants had low allelic fractions (range, 2.3%-7.3%) and none were detected with conventional sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Using high-depth next-generation sequencing and state-of-the art somatic mutation calling approaches, no pathogenic atrial somatic mutations could be confirmed among 25 AF patients in a comprehensive cardiac arrhythmia genetic panel. These findings indicate that atrial-specific mutations are rare and that somatic mosaicism is unlikely to exert a prominent role in AF pathogenesis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Roberts et al. (2014) conducted a case-control in Atrial fibrillation (n=34). Atrial fibrillation vs. Patients without atrial fibrillation was evaluated on Potential somatic missense mutations (p=1). Targeted deep next-generation sequencing revealed potential somatic missense mutations in 12% of atrial fibrillation patients versus 11% of controls (P=1), with no pathogenic mutations confirmed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: