New Approaches to Molecular Diagnosis

Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 Second Ave S, Kaul 230, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 04/2013; 309(14):1511-21. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.3239
Source: PubMed


Advances in understanding the molecular basis of rare and common disorders, as well as in the technology of DNA analysis, are rapidly changing the landscape of molecular genetic and genomic testing. High-resolution molecular cytogenetic analysis can now detect deletions or duplications of DNA of a few hundred thousand nucleotides, well below the resolution of the light microscope. Diagnostic testing for "single-gene" disorders can be done by targeted analysis for specific mutations, by sequencing a specific gene to scan for mutations, or by analyzing multiple genes in which mutation may lead to a similar phenotype. The advent of massively parallel next-generation sequencing facilitates the analysis of multiple genes and now is being used to sequence the coding regions of the genome (the exome) for clinical testing. Exome sequencing requires bioinformatic analysis of the thousands of variants that are identified to find one that is contributing to the pathology; there is also a possibility of incidental identification of other medically significant variants, which may complicate genetic counseling. DNA testing can also be used to identify variants that influence drug metabolism or interaction of a drug with its cellular target, allowing customization of choice of drug and dosage. Exome and genome sequencing are being applied to identify specific gene changes in cancer cells to guide therapy, to identify inherited cancer risk, and to estimate prognosis. Genomic testing may be used to identify risk factors for common disorders, although the clinical utility of such testing is unclear. Genetic and genomic tests may raise new ethical, legal, and social issues, some of which may be addressed by existing genetic nondiscrimination legislation, but which also must be addressed in the course of genetic counseling. The purpose of this article is to assist physicians in recognizing where new approaches to genetic and genomic testing may be applied clinically and in being aware of the principles of interpretation of test results.

Download full-text


Available from: Bruce R Korf, Jul 09, 2014
  • Source
    • "Next-generation high-throughput sequencing techniques now allow us to map the genomic landscape of lung cancer at lower cost, but at orders of magnitude higher speed, compared with the traditional Sanger technique.146,147 These new platforms exponentially enhance our capacity to search for new oncogenes that can be made into drugs.15,148 Imielinski et al149 conducted whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing on 183 paired samples of lung adenocarcinoma and normal lung tissues from treatment-naïve patients, from which 25 hallmark carcinogenic genes including 19 previously reported genes and 6 novel mutants (NKX2-1, TERT, PTEN, MDM2, CCND1, and MYC) were identified. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lung cancer, mostly nonsmall cell lung cancer, continues to be the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. With the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors that selectively target lung cancer-related epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, management of advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer has been greatly transformed. Improvements in progression-free survival and life quality of the patients were observed in numerous clinical studies. However, overall survival is not prolonged because of later-acquired drug resistance. Recent studies reveal a heterogeneous subclonal architecture of lung cancer, so it is speculated that the tumor may rapidly adapt to environmental changes via a Darwinian selection mechanism. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of both spatial and temporal tumor heterogeneity as potential mechanisms underlying epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in nonsmall cell lung cancer and summarize the possible origins of tumor heterogeneity covering theories of cancer stem cells and clonal evolution, as well as genomic instability and epigenetic aberrations in lung cancer. Moreover, investigational measures that overcome heterogeneity-associated drug resistance and new assays to improve tumor assessment are also discussed.
    OncoTargets and Therapy 09/2014; 7:1689-704. DOI:10.2147/OTT.S66502 · 2.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There are several thousand inherited diseases identified to date (Korf and Rehm 2013), among which many affect brain functions. An example is a group of metabolic disorders caused by genetically determined dysfunctions of enzymes or non-enzymatic proteins required for functions of lysosomes , known as lysosomal storage diseases or LSDs (for a recent review see Platt et al. 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Lysosomal storage diseases are inherited metabolic disorders caused by genetic defects causing deficiency of various lysosomal proteins, and resultant accumulation of non-degraded compounds. They are multisystemic diseases, and in most of them (>70 %) severe brain dysfunctions are evident. However, expression of various phenotypes in particular diseases is extremely variable, from non-neuronopathic to severely neurodegenerative in the deficiency of the same enzyme. Although all lysosomal storage diseases are monogenic, clear genotype-phenotype correlations occur only in some cases. In this article, we present an overview on various factors and processes, both general and specific for certain disorders, that can significantly modulate expression of phenotypes in these diseases. On the basis of recent reports describing studies on both animal models and clinical data, we propose a hypothesis that efficiency of production of compounds that cannot be degraded due to enzyme deficiency might be especially important in modulation of phenotypes of patients suffering from lysosomal storage diseases.
    Metabolic Brain Disease 12/2013; 29(1). DOI:10.1007/s11011-013-9455-6 · 2.64 Impact Factor

  • JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 04/2013; 309(14):1522-4. DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.3818 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Show more