Display options
Share it on

Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2015 Jul;3(4):327-45. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.145. Epub 2015 Apr 23.

Splicing analysis for exonic and intronic mismatch repair gene variants associated with Lynch syndrome confirms high concordance between minigene assays and patient RNA analyses.

Molecular genetics & genomic medicine

Heleen M van der Klift, Anne M L Jansen, Niki van der Steenstraten, Elsa C Bik, Carli M J Tops, Peter Devilee, Juul T Wijnen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands ; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands.
  2. Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands.
  3. Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands.
  4. Department of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands ; Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center Leiden, The Netherlands.

PMID: 26247049 PMCID: PMC4521968 DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.145

Abstract

A subset of DNA variants causes genetic disease through aberrant splicing. Experimental splicing assays, either RT-PCR analyses of patient RNA or functional splicing reporter minigene assays, are required to evaluate the molecular nature of the splice defect. Here, we present minigene assays performed for 17 variants in the consensus splice site regions, 14 exonic variants outside these regions, and two deep intronic variants, all in the DNA mismatch-repair (MMR) genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2, associated with Lynch syndrome. We also included two deep intronic variants in APC and PKD2. For one variant (MLH1 c.122A>G), our minigene assay and patient RNA analysis could not confirm the previously reported aberrant splicing. The aim of our study was to further investigate the concordance between minigene splicing assays and patient RNA analyses. For 30 variants results from patient RNA analyses were available, either performed by our laboratory or presented in literature. Some variants were deliberately included in this study because they resulted in multiple aberrant transcripts in patient RNA analysis, or caused a splice effect other than the prevalent exon skip. While both methods were completely concordant in the assessment of splice effects, four variants exhibited major differences in aberrant splice patterns. Based on the present and earlier studies, together showing an almost 100% concordance of minigene assays with patient RNA analyses, we discuss the weight given to minigene splicing assays in the current criteria proposed by InSiGHT for clinical classification of MMR variants.

Keywords: Aberrant splicing; Lynch syndrome; minigene assay; mismatch repair genes; patient RNA analysis; variant classification

References

  1. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 Dec;22(12):1362-8 - PubMed
  2. Breast Cancer Res. 2012 May 25;14(3):R87 - PubMed
  3. Fam Cancer. 2011 Jun;10 (2):297-301 - PubMed
  4. Methods Mol Biol. 2010;653:249-57 - PubMed
  5. Hum Genet. 2008 Sep;124(2):105-22 - PubMed
  6. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 May;23(5):915-33 - PubMed
  7. Mamm Genome. 2007 Sep;18(9):670-6 - PubMed
  8. Hum Mutat. 2004 Sep;24(3):272 - PubMed
  9. FEBS J. 2010 Feb;277(4):841-55 - PubMed
  10. Fam Cancer. 2009;8(3):179-86 - PubMed
  11. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Mar 15;16(6):1957-67 - PubMed
  12. FEBS Lett. 2006 Aug 7;580(18):4449-56 - PubMed
  13. Fam Cancer. 2011 Mar;10 (1):27-35 - PubMed
  14. Hum Mutat. 2010 May;31(5):578-87 - PubMed
  15. J Med Genet. 2013 Aug;50(8):552-63 - PubMed
  16. Hum Mutat. 2008 Nov;29(11):1304-13 - PubMed
  17. Fam Cancer. 2009;8(4):509-17 - PubMed
  18. J Med Genet. 2008 Jul;45(7):438-46 - PubMed
  19. Nat Genet. 2014 Feb;46(2):107-15 - PubMed
  20. Hum Mutat. 2012 Jul;33(7):1045-50 - PubMed
  21. EMBO Rep. 2009 Aug;10(8):810-6 - PubMed
  22. Fam Cancer. 2013 Jun;12(2):181-7 - PubMed
  23. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;867:49-63 - PubMed
  24. Eur J Hum Genet. 2011 Oct;19(10):1052-8 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 2003 Mar 6;348(10):919-32 - PubMed
  26. Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Apr;3(4):285-98 - PubMed
  27. Clin Genet. 2011 Sep;80(3):243-55 - PubMed
  28. Hum Mutat. 2013 Oct;34(10):1424-31 - PubMed
  29. Brief Funct Genomics. 2013 Jan;12(1):3-12 - PubMed
  30. Hum Mutat. 2012 Aug;33(8):1228-38 - PubMed
  31. Clin Chem. 2014 Feb;60(2):341-52 - PubMed
  32. Clin Genet. 2015 Feb;87(2):100-8 - PubMed
  33. Gene. 1995 Aug 19;161(2):183-7 - PubMed
  34. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2014 Sep;53(9):798-801 - PubMed
  35. Hum Mutat. 2008 Dec;29(12 ):1412-24 - PubMed
  36. Hum Mutat. 2006 Feb;27(2):145-54 - PubMed
  37. Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Oct;8(10):749-61 - PubMed

Publication Types