Cystic fibrosis population carrier screening: 2004 revision of American College of Medical Genetics mutation panel

ACMG Cystic Fibrosis Carrier Screening Work Group, American College of Medical Genetics, Bethesda, Maryland 20814, USA.
Genetics in Medicine (Impact Factor: 6.44). 10/2004; 6(5):387-91. DOI: 10.1097/01.GIM.0000139506.11694.7C
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT experiencing challenges in delivering this service. 4 The current CF Foundation patient mutation database includes nearly double the number of CF patient chromosomes available for analysis in 2000. This report summarizes the major recom- mendations of our Working Group with the supporting justi- fication for these decisions. A number of articles in this issue of Genetics in Medicine provide some of the data on which our decisions were made, whereas others provide new information related to this topic.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is an autosomal recessive disorder affecting the chloride transport in mucus-producing epithelial cells. The disease is caused by mutations in the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane conductance Regulator (CFTR), which is responsible for trans-epithelial chloride transport. Approximately 1900 mutations and gene variants of the CFTR have been described. The spectrum of major White-European mutations includes F508del, G542X, G551D and N1303K. F508del is the most common CF-causing mutation, found in approximately 70% of all CF patients worldwide. The spectrum of CF mutations of Arab populations is under-investigated. However, initial molecular-epidemiological studies indicate the existence of specific CF mutation clusters within geographical regions in the Middle East, suggesting specific distributions of CF mutation carrying chromosomes in this part of the world. We showed that the worldwide rare CF mutation S549R is the predominant disease causing mutation in the Omani population. We reported that S549R, together with two other identified mutations, F508del and the rare private mutation V392G, are genetically linked to the exonic methionine polymorphism c.1408A>G; p.Met470Val at exon 10 and the intronic dimorphic 4-bp GATT 6-repeat at intron 6, c.744_33GATT[6_8]. We detected three haplotypes in 28 alleles of the Omani CF cohort and 408 alleles of our control cohort of unrelated and unaffected Omani volunteers. The CF disease associated haplotype consisting of an M allele and a 6-repeat expansion, occurred with an allele frequency of only 0.174 in the normal Omani population. The discriminative power of the haplotype was attributed to the intronic dimorphic 4-bp GATT 6-repeat. Furthermore, we found only one mutation, c.1733_1734delTA in the Omani CF cohort which deviated from the rule and shared the most common haplotype, a V allele and a 7-repeat extension, with the normal population.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) methodology allows for a major expansion in current carrier screening tests. NGS testing has been shown to be analytically accurate and cost-effective, but major challenges include educational and counseling issues.
    Genome Medicine 01/2014; 6(8):62. DOI:10.1186/s13073-014-0062-x · 4.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An international working group was established with the aim of making recommendations on the number of offspring for a sperm donor that should be allowable in cases of international use of his sperm. Considerations from genetic, psychosocial, operational and ethical points of view were debated. For these considerations, it was assumed that current developments in genetic testing and Internet possibilities mean that, now, all donors are potentially identifiable by their offspring, so no distinction was made between anonymous and non-anonymous donation. Genetic considerations did not lead to restrictive limits (indicating that up to 200 offspring or more per donor may be acceptable except in isolated social-minority situations). Psychosocial considerations on the other hand led to proposals of rather restrictive limits (10 families per donor or less). Operational and ethical considerations did not lead to more or less concrete limits per donor, but seemed to lie in-between those resulting from the aforementioned ways of viewing the issue. In the end, no unifying agreed figure could be reached; however the consensus was that the number should never exceed 100 families. The conclusions of the group are summarized in three recommendations. Copyright © 2015 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Reproductive biomedicine online 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.01.018 · 2.98 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014