Search

Purpose: We investigated the contribution of genomic data reanalysis to the diagnostic yield of dystonia patients who remained undiagnosed after prior genome sequencing., Methods: Probands with heterogeneous dystonia phenotypes who underwent initial genome sequencing (GS) analysis in 2019 were included in the reanalysis, which was performed through gene-specific discovery collaborations and systematic genomic data reanalysis., Results: Initial GS analysis in 2019 (n = 111) identified a molecular diagnosis in 11.7 % (13/111) of cases. Reanalysis between 2020 and 2023 increased the diagnostic yield by 7.2 % (8/111); 3.6 % (4/111) through focused gene-specific clinical correlation collaborative efforts [VPS16 (two probands), AOPEP and POLG], and 3.6 % (4/111) by systematic reanalysis completed in 2023 [NUS1 (two probands) and DDX3X variants, and a microdeletion encompassing VPS16]. Seven of these patients had a high phenotype-based dystonia score ≥3. Notable unverified findings in four additional cases included suspicious variants of uncertain significance in FBXL4 and EIF2AK2, and potential phenotypic expansion associated with SLC2A1 and TREX1 variants., Conclusion: GS data reanalysis increased the diagnostic yield from 11.7 % to 18.9 %, with potential extension up to 22.5 %. While optimal timing for diagnostic reanalysis remains to be determined, this study demonstrates that periodic re-interrogation of dystonia GS datasets can provide additional genetic diagnoses, which may have significant implications for patients and their families., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Kishore Raj Kumar reports financial support was provided by the Ainsworth 4 Foundation. Stephen Tisch reports a relationship with Medtronic that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Stephen Tisch reports a relationship with Boston Scientific that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Stephen Tisch reports a relationship with Seqirus Pharmaceuticals that includes: consulting or advisory and speaking and lecture fees. Carolyn M. Sue reports a relationship with Living Cell Technologies Ltd. that includes: consulting or advisory. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Dystonia is a clinically and genetically heterogeneous disorder and a genetic cause is often difficult to elucidate. This is the first study to use whole genome sequencing (WGS) to investigate dystonia in a large sample of affected individuals., Methods: WGS was performed on 111 probands with heterogenous dystonia phenotypes. We performed analysis for coding and non-coding variants, copy number variants (CNVs), and structural variants (SVs). We assessed for an association between dystonia and 10 known dystonia risk variants., Results: A genetic diagnosis was obtained for 11.7% (13/111) of individuals. We found that a genetic diagnosis was more likely in those with an earlier age at onset, younger age at testing, and a combined dystonia phenotype. We identified pathogenic/likely-pathogenic variants in ADCY5 (n = 1), ATM (n = 1), GNAL (n = 2), GLB1 (n = 1), KMT2B (n = 2), PRKN (n = 2), PRRT2 (n = 1), SGCE (n = 2), and THAP1 (n = 1). CNVs were detected in 3 individuals. We found an association between the known risk variant ARSG rs11655081 and dystonia (p = 0.003)., Conclusion: A genetic diagnosis was found in 11.7% of individuals with dystonia. The diagnostic yield was higher in those with an earlier age of onset, younger age at testing, and a combined dystonia phenotype. WGS may be particularly relevant for dystonia given that it allows for the detection of CNVs, which accounted for 23% of the genetically diagnosed cases., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)