|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hereditary Disease |

* Division of Nephrology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, and
Program in Genetics and Genomic Biology, Hospital for Sick Children and Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence: Dr. York Pei, Division of Nephrology, University Health Network, 8N838, 585 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2N2. Phone: 416-340-4257; Fax: 416-340-4999; E-mail: york.pei{at}uhn.on.ca
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Using a molecular diagnostic service, genomic DNA of one affected individual from each study family was screened for pathologic PKD1 and PKD2 mutations. Bidirectional sequencing was performed to identify sequence variants in all exons and splice junctions of both genes and to confirm the specific mutations in other family members. In two multiplex families, microsatellite markers were genotyped at both PDK1 and PKD2 loci, and pair-wise and multipoint linkage analysis was performed.
Results: Three of five probands studied were referred for assessment of renal cystic disease without a family history of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, and two others were younger at-risk members of families with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease being evaluated as living-related kidney donors. Gene-based mutation screening identified pathogenic mutations that provided confirmation or exclusion of disease in three probands, but in the other two, only unclassified variants were identified. In one proband in which mutation screening was indeterminate, DNA linkage studies provided strong evidence for disease exclusion.
Conclusions: Gene-based mutation screening or DNA linkage analysis should be considered in individuals in whom the diagnosis of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease is uncertain because of a lack of family history or equivocal imaging results and in younger at-risk individuals who are being evaluated as living-related kidney donors.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
PKD1 is a large gene consisting of 46 exons with an open reading frame of approximately 13 kb and is predicted to encode a protein of 4302 amino acids. Its entire 5' region up to exon 33 has been duplicated six times more proximally on chromosome 16p, and the presence of these highly homologous pseudogenes has made genetic analysis of PKD1 difficult (1,2). Recent availability of protocols for long-range and locus-specific amplification of PKD1 has enabled the complete mutation screening of this complex gene (9–11). By contrast, PKD2 is a single-copy gene that consists of 15 exons with an open reading frame of approximately 3 kb and is predicted to encode a protein of 968 amino acids (1,2). Marked allelic heterogeneity is evident for ADPKD, with more than 200 different PKD1 and more than 50 different PKD2 mutations reported to date (2,9–11). The majority of these mutations are unique and scattered throughout both genes. Most of them are also predicted to be protein truncating (as a result of frame-shift deletion/insertion, nonsense changes, or splice defects), although a significant number of unclassified variants (UCV; e.g., in-frame deletions, missense changes) have been reported (9–11). Despite sequencing of all of the coding regions and exon-intron splice junctions in both genes only 45 to 63% of pathogenic mutations could be identified in three large clinical series (9–11).
The diagnosis of ADPKD is generally straightforward when affected individuals present with a positive family history and enlarged kidneys with multiple cysts (12). Renal ultrasound is a sensitive method for this purpose, and age-dependant criteria based on cyst number have been derived for individuals who are born with 50% risk for PKD1 (13); however, because cyst formation is an age-dependent process, the false-negative rate of ultrasound-based diagnosis is higher in younger at-risk individuals or in those who are affected by PKD2, which is associated with later onset disease (14). Equivocal imaging results can be a source of diagnostic uncertainty in the clinic because the underlying gene type for most patients is unknown. In addition, renal cystic disease without a family history of ADPKD and evaluation of younger at-risk individuals as living-related kidney donors are clinical scenarios that often pose diagnostic challenges (12). Using a case series, we illustrate the utility and limitations of molecular diagnostics for ADPKD in the clinical setting.
| Concise Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
60 yr (13). All study participants provided a blood sample for serum creatinine and DNA genetic analysis. Estimated GFR (eGFR) was calculated from serum creatinine using a formula that adjusted for age, gender, and body weight (15). The institutional review board of the University Health Network in Toronto approved all of the protocols used for this study.
Gene-Based Mutation Screening
Sequence analysis of PKD1 and PKD2 was performed in one clinically affected individual from each family using a commercial diagnostic service (Athena Diagnostics, Worcester, MA) (10,11). Briefly, genomic DNA was used as template for specific long-range PCR amplification of eight segments encompassing the entire PKD1 duplicated region. The long-range PCR products served as templates for 43 nested PCR; the unique region of PKD1 and the entire PKD2 were amplified from genomic DNA in 28 additional PCR. All 71 PCR products were bidirectionally sequenced, including the coding regions and exon-intron splice junctions of both genes (11).
DNA Linkage and Haplotype Analysis
We genotyped all of the available study participants from TOR12 and TOR163 with five simple-sequence repeat (SSR) markers each at the PKD1 and PKD2 loci (16). The locations of these markers relative to the PKD1 locus are shown as follows (the number between markers denotes intermarker distance in cM): HBAP1-2.0-PKD1-0.1-CW4-0.1-SM6-0.6-D16S2618-2.0-D16S423. The locations of these markers relative to the PKD2 locus are shown as follows (the number between markers denotes intermarker distance in cM): D4S231-2.0-D5S1534-2.3-SPP1-0.2-PKD2-0.5-D4S1563-2.0-D4S423. Genotyping was performed by 32P
-dCTP labeling of the PCR products and analyzed by PAGE (16). All genotypes were performed and scored independently by K.R.W. without any knowledge of the clinical status of the study participants. Haplotypes were constructed by hand and using the program GENEHUNTER (v2.1 r5) (17). Two-point and multipoint linkage with "affected-only analysis" was performed using the M-LINK program of the FASTLINK package (version 4.0) (18,19) and GENEHUNTER (v2.1 r5) (17), respectively. An autosomal dominant model with a disease allele frequency of 0.001 and a phenocopy rate of 0.001 was assumed. Marker allele frequencies were obtained from married-in individuals and reconstruction of the genotypes of the founders.
Predicting Deleterious Missense Mutations by PolyPhen
We used the software PolyPhen (http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/pph/) to evaluate the functional significance of a number of unclassified missense variants that alter a single amino acid residue (20). Upon entry of the protein identification and the wild-type and mutant amino acid variants, PolyPhen performed a comprehensive search to identify all of the homologous protein sequences. On the basis of alignment of these homologous protein sequences, PolyPhen computes profile scores for both allelic variants. Profile scores are logarithmic ratios of the likelihood of a given amino acid occurring at a particular site to the likelihood of this amino acid occurring at any site (background frequency). A variant is predicted to be damaging when the absolute difference between the profile scores of two amino acid variants is >1.7 (20).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
The possible diagnoses to be considered in this case include de novo ADPKD in the proband with simple renal cyst(s) in her father and brother versus PKD2 with discordant renal disease severity between family members. DNA linkage analysis was performed initially and was uninformative. Gene-based mutation screening, however, provided unambiguous evidence for de novo PKD1 in the proband.
TOR130.
The proband (II:1) was a 28-yr-old man who was referred for evaluation of renal cystic disease without a family history of ADPKD. He was found to have four cysts in each kidney on ultrasound scan when assessed for nonspecific abdominal pain. Subsequent ultrasound screening showed no renal cysts in either of his parents, who were >50 yr of age, but a single 1.4-cm renal cortical cyst in his 21-yr-old brother (II:2). Gene-based screening revealed a pathogenic mutation in PKD2 (2159ins1bp; FS720
724X) in the proband but not in his brother and parents.
The possible diagnoses to be considered in this case include de novo ADPKD in the proband versus de novo ADPKD with germline mosaicism in one of the proband's parents. In the latter case, the proband's younger brother would be expected to be affected because the presence of even a single renal cyst is highly unusual in his age group (12). Gene-based mutation screening was informative and provided strong evidence suggesting that the proband had de novo PKD2 and that his brother had a simple renal cyst.
TOR166. The proband (III:1) was a 30-yr-old man who was referred for evaluation of enlarged kidneys with multiple cortical cysts bilaterally on ultrasound scan when he was investigated for abdominal pain. He had no family history of ADPKD. Ultrasound screening showed no renal abnormality in his father, but his 48-yr-old mother (II:3) was found to have numerous left renal cysts and a normal right kidney. Although the renal ultrasound findings of the proband are highly suggestive of ADPKD, this case is confounded by the atypical renal ultrasound findings in his mother. Gene-based screening was therefore performed in the proband but failed to identify a definitively pathogenic mutation. However, one UCV (L2021P) in PKD1 was identified in both the proband and his mother and is predicted as possibly damaging by PolyPhen (i.e., the absolute difference between the profile scores of two amino acid variants for L2021P was 1.837). The clinical significance of this UCV is presently unclear.
Evaluation of Living-Related Kidney Donors
TOR163.
The proband (III:3) was a 28-yr-old woman who was referred for evaluation as a living-related kidney donor to her father. She had a strong family history of ADPKD that traced back to her paternal grandmother (I:2), who died of ESRD at 70 yr of age. Both her father (II:2) and paternal uncle (II:1), who were born with a solitary kidney, were affected and developed ESRD by 50 yr of age. Her two youngest sisters (III:4 and III:5) were also affected with normal renal function. Ultrasound screening of the proband and her two older siblings was normal. A negative scan at her age, however, cannot completely rule out ADPKD, especially for the milder PKD2. Direct sequencing of PKD1 and PKD2 was therefore performed on her father, which identified two PKD1 UCV (Q739R and del2763M) but no definitively pathogenic mutation. The missense variant was predicted to be benign by PolyPhen (i.e., the absolute difference between the profile scores of two amino acid variants for Q739R was 0.155), whereas the clinical significance of the in-frame deletion is unknown. Given the indeterminate results of the gene-based screening, we genotyped the family with SSR markers at both PKD1 and PKD2 loci. Pair-wise and multipoint "affected-only" linkage analysis of TOR163 yielded exclusionary logarithm of odds scores (less than –2) at the PKD2 locus and maximal multipoint logarithm of odds score of 1.1 at the PKD1 locus (data not shown). Haplotype inspection showed that only the PKD1 haplotype (3-2-2-3-1) but no single PKD2 haplotype co-segregated with all of the affected individuals (Figure 2). These data indicate that TOR163 is PKD1 linked, and the absence of the putative PKD1 disease haplotype (3-2-2-3-1) in our proband provides strong evidence that she is not affected by ADPKD. She was therefore cleared as a living-related donor.
|
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Individuals who are born with 50% risk for ADPKD often are evaluated as potential living-related kidney donors to their affected relatives. The issue in these cases becomes one of disease exclusion, which can be difficult in younger individuals using an imaging-based approach (12–14). Gene-based mutation screening plays an increasingly important role in the evaluation of these individuals, such as the proband from TOR165. In this particular family, we were surprised to find a pathogenic PKD2 mutation in the proband's father (II:1), who had severe renal disease typical of PKD1. This finding illustrates that renal disease severity may not be a reliable indicator of the underlying gene type. As seen in TOR163 and TOR166, gene-based mutation screening may not be informative in 47 to 58% of cases (9–11). In such instances, DNA linkage-based diagnostics using microsatellite markers and single-nucleotide polymorphisms should be considered, as in TOR163, when multiple affected individuals are available for evaluation.
Molecular diagnostics should be considered in individuals in whom the diagnosis of ADPKD is uncertain because of a lack of family history or equivocal imaging results and in younger at-risk individuals who are being evaluated as living-related kidney donors. Although gene-based mutation screening is simple and requires only a blood sample from the test individual, definitive mutations are identified in only 47 to 58% of cases (9–11). In pedigrees with multiple affected members, DNA linkage analysis may provide useful information and should be considered.
| Disclosures |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
We are indebted to all of the participating members of the families with ADPKD.
| Footnotes |
|---|
See related editorial, "Molecular Diagnostics of ADPKD Coming of Age," on pages 1–2.
Access to UpToDate on-line is available for additional clinical information at http://www.cjasn.org/
Received August 15, 2007. Accepted September 30, 2007.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related Article
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
M. Barua, O. Cil, A. D. Paterson, K. Wang, N. He, E. Dicks, P. Parfrey, and Y. Pei Family History of Renal Disease Severity Predicts the Mutated Gene in ADPKD J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., August 1, 2009; 20(8): 1833 - 1838. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. J. Grantham Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease N. Engl. J. Med., October 2, 2008; 359(14): 1477 - 1485. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |