Genetics of inborn errors of immunity: Diagnostic strategies and new approaches to CNV detection

Elisabet Matas Pérez,Andrea González Torbay,Mario Solis López,Ricardo Cuesta Martín de la Cámara,Carmen Rodríguez Jiménez,Mari Ángeles Mori Álvarez,Julián Nevado Blanco,Carla Gianelli,Carmen Cámara Hijón,Eduardo López Granados,Rebeca Rodríguez Pena,Ángela del Pozo Mate,María Bravo García‐Morato,Ángela del Pozo Mate
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.14191
2024-03-07
European Journal of Clinical Investigation
Abstract:The diagnosis of IEI is complex due to the clinical overlap, the presence of pseudogenes and the difficult detection of CNVs that requires quantitative techniques. In our centre, 703 patients with an IEI suspicion were evaluated: 142 were diagnosed, of whom 19 had a causative CNV. We characterized these CNVs and compared the sensitivity and specificity of MLPA, CHG array and NGS for the detection of CNVS. Finally, we propose a genetic algorithm for the evaluation of IEI suspicions. Background Genetic diagnosis of inborn errors of immunity (IEI) is complex due to the large number of genes involved and their molecular features. Missense variants have been reported as the most common cause of IEI. However, the frequency of copy number variants (CNVs) may be underestimated since their detection requires specific quantitative techniques. At this point, the use of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) is acquiring relevance. Methods In this article, we present our experience in the genetic diagnosis of IEI based on three diagnostic algorithms that allowed the detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and CNVs. Following this approximation, 703 index cases were evaluated between 2014 and 2021. Sanger sequencing, MLPA, CGH array, breakpoint spanning PCR or a customized NGS‐based multigene‐targeted panel were performed. Results A genetic diagnosis was reached in 142 of the 703 index cases (20%), 19 of them presented deletions as causal variants. Deletions were also detected in 5 affected relatives and 16 healthy carriers during the family studies. Additionally, we compile, characterize and present all the CNVs detected by our diagnostic algorithms, representing the largest cohort of deletions related to IEI to date. Furthermore, three bioinformatic tools (LACONv, XHMM, VarSeqTM) based on NGS data were evaluated. VarSeqTM was the most sensitive and specific bioinformatic tool; detecting 21/23 (91%) deletions located in captured regions. Conclusion Based on our results, we propose a strategy to guide the molecular diagnosis that can be followed by expert and non‐expert centres in the field of IEI.
medicine, general & internal, research & experimental
What problem does this paper attempt to address?