Background: Inherited tubulopathies are a heterogeneous group of genetic disorders making whole exome sequencing (WES) the preferred diagnostic methodology. Methods: This was a multi-centric descriptive study wherein children (<18 years) with clinically suspected tubular disorders were recruited for molecular testing through WES. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and Sanger sequencing were done when required. Variants were classified as per American College of Medical Genetics 2015 guidelines and pathogenic (P) / likely pathogenic (LP) variants were considered causative. Results: There were 77 index cases (Male =73%; female). Median age of diagnosis Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation was 48 months (IQR 18.5 to 108 months). At recruitment, number of children in each clinical group were as follows: Distal Renal Tubular Acidosis (dRTA) =25, Bartter syndrome=18, Isolated Hypophosphatemic rickets (HP) =6, Proximal tubular dysfunction (pTD) = 12, Nephrogenic Diabetes Insipidus (NDI) =6, Kidney stone / Nephrocalcinosis (NC) =6 and Others =4. We detected 55 (24 novel) P/LP variants, providing genetic diagnoses in 54 children (70%). The diagnostic yield of WES was highest for NDI (100%), followed by HP (83%; all X-linked HP), Bartter syndrome (78%), pTD (75%), dRTA (64%), and NC (33%). Molecular testing had a definite impact on clinical management in 24 (31%) children. This included revising clinical diagnosis among 14 children (26% of those with a confirmed genetic diagnosis and 18% of the overall cohort), detection of previously unrecognized co-morbidities among 8 children (sensorineural deafness: n=5, hemolytic anemia: n=2, and dental changes: n=1) and facilitating specific medical treatment among 7 children (Primary Hyperoxaluria: n=1, Cystinosis: n=4, Tyrosinemia: n=2). Conclusion: WES is a powerful tool in the diagnosis and management of children with inherited tubulopathies in the Indian population.
Response to Reviewers:Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:Major concernsComment 1:The a priori inclusion criteria of this study remain unclear. Since the authors investigate multiple disease entities, they list a "phenotype description" for each disease entity in TI. However, it remains unclear if and to which extent this phenotype description needed to be fulfilled for the respective patient to be included in this supposedly prospective study in general and in the respective cohort in particular. Furthermore, the category "Others" seems to entirely consist of patients that did not fulfill any clear inclusion criteria beyond a presumptive diagnosis of tubulopathy by their treating physician. To avoid the impression of selective in-and exclusion of patients and post-hoc grouping of patient cohorts, the authors should clearly explain their inclusion process and, most importantly, add the actual phenotype of the respective patient in TII.Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting this concern. At the time of collecting blood sample for g...