Variants in ABCA4 are responsible for autosomal-recessive Stargardt disease and cone-rod dystrophy. Sequence analysis of ABCA4 exons previously revealed one causative variant in each of 45 probands. To identify the "missing" variants in these cases, we performed multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification-based deletion scanning of ABCA4. In addition, we sequenced the promoter region, fragments containing five deep-intronic splice variants, and 15 deep-intronic regions containing weak splice sites. Heterozygous deletions spanning ABCA4 exon 5 or exons 20-22 were found in two probands, heterozygous deep-intronic variants were identified in six probands, and a deep-intronic variant was found together with an exon 20-22 deletion in one proband. Based on ophthalmologic findings and characteristics of the identified exonic variants present in trans, the deep-intronic variants V1 and V4 were predicted to be relatively mild and severe, respectively. These findings are important for proper genetic counseling and for the development of variant-specific therapies.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Approximately two third of patients with a rare genetic disease remain undiagnosed after exome sequencing (ES). As part of our post-test counseling procedures, patients without a conclusive diagnosis are advised to recontact their referring clinician to discuss new diagnostic opportunities in due time. We performed a systematic study of genetically undiagnosed patients 5 years after their initial negative ES report to determine the efficiency of diverse reanalysis strategies. Methods We revisited a cohort of 150 pediatric neurology patients originally enrolled at Radboud University Medical Center, of whom 103 initially remained genetically undiagnosed. We monitored uptake of physician-initiated routine clinical and/or genetic re-evaluation (ad hoc re-evaluation) and performed systematic reanalysis, including ES-based resequencing, of all genetically undiagnosed patients (systematic re-evaluation). Results Ad hoc re-evaluation was initiated for 45 of 103 patients and yielded 18 diagnoses (including 1 non-genetic). Subsequent systematic re-evaluation identified another 14 diagnoses, increasing the diagnostic yield in our cohort from 31% (47/150) to 53% (79/150). New genetic diagnoses were established by reclassification of previously identified variants (10%, 3/31), reanalysis with enhanced bioinformatic pipelines (19%, 6/31), improved coverage after resequencing (29%, 9/31), and new disease-gene associations (42%, 13/31). Crucially, our systematic study also showed that 11 of the 14 further conclusive genetic diagnoses were made in patients without a genetic diagnosis that did not recontact their referring clinician. Conclusions We find that upon re-evaluation of undiagnosed patients, both reanalysis of existing ES data as well as resequencing strategies are needed to identify additional genetic diagnoses. Importantly, not all patients are routinely re-evaluated in clinical care, prolonging their diagnostic trajectory, unless systematic reanalysis is facilitated. We have translated our observations into considerations for systematic and ad hoc reanalysis in routine genetic care.

No abstract