Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 1, 2026
Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization Array CGH for Detection of Genomic Copy Number Variants
Published on: February 21, 2015
Commercial Gene Panels for Congenital Anterior Segment Anomalies: Are They All the Same?
Maria Fernanda Villalba1, Chris Michael Li2, Parastou Pakravan2
1From the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (M.F.V., T.C.P.C.), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA; John P. Hussmann Institute for Human Genomics (M.F.V., G.B.), University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, USA; University of Miami Miller School of Medicine (M.F.V., C.M.L., P.P.), Miami, Florida, USA.
Purpose:
We compared next generation sequencing multigene panels (NGS-MGP) from 5 commercial laboratories to inform ophthalmologists' decision making in diagnostic genetic testing for congenital anterior segment anomalies (CASAs).
Design:
Comparison of commercial genetic testing panels.
Methods:
This observational study gathered publicly available information on NGS-MGP from 5 commercial laboratories for the following: cataracts, glaucoma, anterior segment dysgenesis (ASD), microphthalmia-anophthalmia-coloboma (MAC), corneal dystrophies, and Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome (ARS). We compared gene panel composition, consensus rate (genes covered by all the panels per condition, "concurrent"), dissensus rate (genes covered by only 1 panel per condition, "standalone"), and intronic variant coverage. For individual genes, we compared publication history and association with systemic conditions.
Results:
Altogether, cataract, glaucoma, corneal dystrophies, MAC, ASD, and ARS panels tested 239, 60, 36, 292, and 10 discrete genes, respectively. The consensus rate varied between 16% and 50%, and the dissensus rate varied between 14% and 74%. After pooling concurrent genes from all conditions, 20% of these genes were concurrent in 2 or more conditions. For both cataract and glaucoma, concurrent genes had significantly stronger correlation with the condition than standalone genes.
Conclusions:
The genetic testing of CASAs using NGS-MGPs is complicated, owing to their number, variety, and phenotypic and genetic overlap. Although the inclusion of additional genes, such as the standalone ones, might increase diagnostic yield, these genes are also less well studied, indicating uncertainty over their role in CASA pathogenesis. Rigorous prospective diagnostic yield studies of NGS-MGPs will aid in making decisions of panel selection for the diagnosis of CASAs.
