Even Pore-Localizing Missense Variants at Highly Conserved Sites in KCNQ1-encoded Kv7.1 Channels May Have Wild-Type Function and Not Cause Type 1 Long QT Syndrome: Do Not Rely Solely on the Genetic Test Company's Interpretation.

Ashley Paquin,Dan Ye,David J. Tester,Jamie D. Kapplinger,Michael T. Zimmermann,Michael J. Ackerman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrcr.2017.04.006
2018-01-01
HeartRhythm Case Reports
Abstract:Key Teaching Points•Since genetic testing for long QT syndrome exerts a substantial diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic impact for the index cases and their affected family members, it is of critical importance to identify the exact disease-causing mutation and to properly rule out benign variants.•The article contains a fundamentally important message and dispels a commonly held perception, namely, that identification of a rare variant does not automatically equate to a disease diagnosis.•Even KCNQ1 mutations within areas of high probability of pathogenicity (ie, transmembrane spanning or pore-forming regions) or indicated by a genetic test company as “deleterious” should be interpreted with caution, especially if the variant-positive individuals have insufficient clinical evidence for a diagnosis of long QT syndrome in the first place.•It is important that physicians analyze the veracity and concordance of the evidence underpinning both the alleged genotype and the alleged phenotype. If discordance exists, one must be critical of any genetic test company's interpretation and tread carefully with the use of the genotypic data in their clinical decision making.•Genetic testing continues to be perceived as the ultimate diagnostic arbiter, yet the perils of testing in a poorly phenotyped family can be significant as illustrated in this case, with major implications for the family in terms of medical care, potential restrictions, insurance, and the psychological burden such a diagnosis brings. •Since genetic testing for long QT syndrome exerts a substantial diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic impact for the index cases and their affected family members, it is of critical importance to identify the exact disease-causing mutation and to properly rule out benign variants.•The article contains a fundamentally important message and dispels a commonly held perception, namely, that identification of a rare variant does not automatically equate to a disease diagnosis.•Even KCNQ1 mutations within areas of high probability of pathogenicity (ie, transmembrane spanning or pore-forming regions) or indicated by a genetic test company as “deleterious” should be interpreted with caution, especially if the variant-positive individuals have insufficient clinical evidence for a diagnosis of long QT syndrome in the first place.•It is important that physicians analyze the veracity and concordance of the evidence underpinning both the alleged genotype and the alleged phenotype. If discordance exists, one must be critical of any genetic test company's interpretation and tread carefully with the use of the genotypic data in their clinical decision making.•Genetic testing continues to be perceived as the ultimate diagnostic arbiter, yet the perils of testing in a poorly phenotyped family can be significant as illustrated in this case, with major implications for the family in terms of medical care, potential restrictions, insurance, and the psychological burden such a diagnosis brings.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?