↓ Skip to main content

Points to Consider in the Clinical Use of NGS Panels for Mitochondrial Disease: An Analysis of Gene Inclusion and Consent Forms

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Genetic Counseling, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Points to Consider in the Clinical Use of NGS Panels for Mitochondrial Disease: An Analysis of Gene Inclusion and Consent Forms
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10897-013-9683-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Platt, Rachel Cox, Gregory M. Enns

Abstract

Mitochondrial next generation sequencing (NGS) panels offer single-step analysis of the numerous nuclear genes involved in the structure, function, and maintenance of mitochondria. However, the complexities of mitochondrial biology and genetics raise points for consideration in clinical use of these tests. To understand the current status of mitochondrial genetic testing, we assessed the gene offerings and consent forms of mitochondrial NGS panels available from seven US-based clinical laboratories. The NGS panels varied markedly in number of genes (101-1204 genes), and the proportion of genes causing "classic" mitochondrial diseases and their phenocopies ranged widely between labs (18 %-94 % of panel contents). All panels included genes not associated with classic mitochondrial diseases (6 %-28 % of panel contents), including genes causing adult-onset neurodegenerative disorders, cancer predisposition, and other genetic syndromes or inborn errors of metabolism. Five of the panels included genes that are not listed in OMIM to be associated with a disease phenotype (5 %-49 % of panel contents). None of the consent documents reviewed had options for patient preference regarding receipt of incidental findings. These findings raise points of discussion applicable to mitochondrial diagnostics, but also to the larger arenas of exome and genome sequencing, including the need to consider the boundaries between clinical and research testing, the necessity of appropriate informed consent, and the responsibilities of clinical laboratories and clinicians. Based on these findings, we recommend careful evaluation by laboratories of the genes offered on NGS panels, clear communication of the predicted phenotypes, and revised consent forms to allow patients to make choices about receiving incidental findings. We hope that our analysis and recommendations will help to maximize the considerable clinical utility of NGS panels for the diagnosis of mitochondrial disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,187,012
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#673
of 1,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,000
of 304,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Genetic Counseling
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 304,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.