Defining the Pathogenicity of DNA Sequence Variation
2009; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 2; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/circgenetics.109.864793
ISSN1942-325X
AutoresCarolyn Y. Ho, Calum A. MacRae,
Tópico(s)Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
ResumoHomeCirculation: Cardiovascular GeneticsVol. 2, No. 2Defining the Pathogenicity of DNA Sequence Variation Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBDefining the Pathogenicity of DNA Sequence Variation Carolyn Y. Ho and Calum A. MacRae Carolyn Y. HoCarolyn Y. Ho From the Cardiovascular Division (C.Y.H.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; and the Cardiovascular Research Center and Cardiology Division (C.A.M.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. and Calum A. MacRaeCalum A. MacRae From the Cardiovascular Division (C.Y.H.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass; and the Cardiovascular Research Center and Cardiology Division (C.A.M.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass. Originally published1 Apr 2009https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.109.864793Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics. 2009;2:95–97Understanding the relationship between genotype and phenotype remains one of the most challenging hurdles in human genetics, especially as efforts are made to translate genetic data into clinical prediction of disease or therapeutic outcomes.1Mendelian DisordersFor many cardiac or vascular conditions in which the initial presentation may be fatal, a strong genotype–phenotype correlation is of fundamental importance if genetic diagnosis or prognostication is ever to be useful. Even in classic monogenic disorders, in which large effect sizes are observed, genetic prediction is often confounded by reduced penetrance, wide variation in the final phenotypes (pleiotropy), or sporadic phenocopies.2 Although such trait "complexity" has been viewed largely in terms of environmental or genetic modifiers, such factors have proven difficult to identify. It is also possible that strong selection pressures against many cardiovascular traits may result in purely stochastic events playing a larger role in shaping phenotype.3 Rigorous genetic studies have identified many cardiovascular disease genes, leading to broader investigation in smaller families and individual probands. Although identifying variants in these same genes in unrelated individuals provides important confirmation and strengthens the initial data, the clinical significance of the numerous additional variants uncovered in subsequent resequencing efforts may be ambiguous.4 The level of support for these variants as disease causing is often much less robust than for the original discovery. As a result, rare (or not so rare) benign polymorphisms populate many mutation databases, often indistinguishable from pathogenic mutations.Article see p 182The interpretation of sequence data in the absence of relevant genetic or functional data to support pathogenicity is fraught with problems. The pertinent issues are well illustrated in research and commercial proband-based "gene screening" efforts in several cardiac syndromes in which detected rates of de novo DNA sequence variants are high, reliable data to predict their clinical significance are scarce, long-term outcomes are typically not available, and single individuals are occasionally found to have mutations in multiple genes.5 In these latter cases, multiple mutations are often proposed to result in more profound phenotypes because of a putative gene dosage effect. Unfortunately, it can be extremely challenging to determine the functional consequences of all sequence variants because the background phenotypic heterogeneity is substantial. Furthermore, family segregation data, detailed clinical outcomes, or functional assays are often not available for 1, let alone 2, variants. Rigorous evidence to support the true impact of double mutations is available for remarkably few reported cases, making it difficult to accurately speculate on the clinical significance of multiple mutations on either an individual or a population basis.1,5The absence of robust genetic support in humans or in animal models is further compounded by reliance on other circumstantial lines of evidence. Resequencing studies of disease genes have typically not subjected control populations to the same level of scrutiny as patient cohorts; therefore, similar rare but benign variants in normal individuals go undetected. Even if available, in vitro functional data obtained in heterologous systems may not accurately reflect in vivo physiology as a result of failure to recapitulate key components of the cellular or organismal biology.6 Partner proteins, intracellular compartmentalization of signals, unknown environmental contributions, and significant pathway redundancy all may modify the final phenotype.3 Nucleotide variants with apparent phenotypes in vitro may have no effect in the context of the powerful homeostatic influences of other physiological pathways. Human genetics offers many examples of profound in vitro effects that fail to translate into an obvious in vivo phenotype.7 As an end result, pathogenicity may be attributed to DNA sequence variants using flawed and somewhat circular logic.Common Disease: The Challenges of Genome-Wide Association StudiesThese challenges for genotype–phenotype correlation are only magnified in common traits, in which underlying etiologic heterogeneity may be considerable, heritability is less clearly defined, and effect sizes are orders of magnitude smaller.8 These very factors will also militate against rapid mechanistic understanding of the role of individual variants. Detection of subtle coding sequence alleles, noncoding regulatory functions, or remote effects in cis and trans are all likely to be compromised by intrinsically low signal-to-noise ratios.8–10 Given the limited predictive utility of genetic data in many Mendelian diseases, it is difficult to imagine at present how individualized prediction at the genomic level will be feasible with current data sets.1 The cumulative risk attributable to the major common alleles for any given trait is unlikely to translate into meaningful insights if, as has been the case in most studies to date, molecular mechanisms and larger genetic or environmental factors remain uncharacterized. Any attempt to define robust genotype–phenotype correlations must address these unknown intermediate effect alleles, many of which might have been predicted from preexisting heritability data.Potential SolutionsUltimately, several different strategies must converge to facilitate the development of quantitative relationships between nucleotide variants and clinically meaningful traits. As they emerge, massively parallel sequencing technologies will allow large-scale resequencing studies in patients and controls to accelerate the identification of genetic associations with disease.11 Nevertheless, these studies will be subject to many of the confounders noted above, particularly if rooted in heterogeneous cohorts with imprecise phenotypes.There is no substitute for a detailed understanding of the mechanisms of disease. Disease-relevant functional assays have proven useful in developing predictive frameworks, especially when a biologically relevant activity of the protein can be measured directly in vitro or in vivo. Yet, even in deficiencies of a single enzyme, correlation between a specific in vitro assay and clinical severity can be difficult to capture.12 When less is known of the causal chain between DNA sequence variation and final phenotype, or when this relationship is difficult to discriminate above the biological noise, any such correlation falls off rapidly. For example, disease may result from subtle effects on development decades earlier, the protein may have unsuspected attributes, or mutation may lead to the gain of novel functions. It is no surprise that these aspects are not often captured by conventional clinical phenotypes that typically reflect only macroscopic late-stage features of disease. Pleiotropy and reduced penetrance, both commonly seen in heritable conditions, challenge efforts to garner useful predictive genotypic data. Experience with monogenic disorders as well as emerging results from genome-wide association studies suggest that the apparent complexity of common disease often resides in the phenotype.3,13Examples of this complexity abound. In cardiac repolarization, despite the mechanistic insight from the successful cloning of long-QT genes, predicting sudden death from simple genotype has proven challenging, even within a single family. For many of the sequence variants identified to date, there are few genetic data to substantiate a causal role in arrhythmia. The QT interval varies widely with autonomic and environmental influences, fails to encompass morphological abnormalities of repolarization, and is at best an imperfect reflection of the underlying proarrhythmic state.14,15 There is often discordance between the available in vitro data from heterologous expression studies of ion channel function and observed effects on ventricular electrophysiology in animal models or in man.14,16 Few, if any, studies correlating clinical outcome with genotype account for the relatedness of individuals, and apparent risk factors for sudden death are thus more likely to reflect attributes of specific families within the cohorts than provide robust measures of the utility of genotype.The next generation of patient-oriented studies must offer rigorous estimates of heritability and more precise definition of disease traits. Currently, such efforts are constrained by the limited resolution of traditional clinical assays.13,17 Identifying more granular novel disease traits or endophenotypes will not only help to resolve etiologic heterogeneity (even if acquired) but will also enable empirical estimates of the genetic architecture of these traits, improve the power of all forms of genetic study, and allow the cost effective prioritization of investigation based on magnitude of effect. These new clinical studies will exploit the latest functional genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic technologies, as well as reappraise traditional phenotypes ranging from biochemistry and physiology to imaging.18,19 Perhaps the most effective strategies will integrate multiple approaches at a systems level, building disease specific networks that may then be interrogated.18,20,21 As we understand the complete genetic architecture of each disease, the relative importance of specific genotypes will be more readily estimated, and robust population attributable risks may be calculated.3 Validated endophenotypes will offer immediate benefits to all forms of genetic study, expanding Mendelian families and resolving heterogeneity in cohorts for genome-wide association.8,13Ultimately, in the face of a need for both relevant functional assays to test the effects of genotypic variation and more multidimensional clinical phenotypes, it may be most efficient to focus efforts on the identification of end points that will serve both purposes. Clinical relevance will be key, and the most useful phenotypes are likely to encompass dynamic responses and allow bidirectional translation from bench to bedside. For most diseases, this will require systematic approaches to redefine the most informative components of the underlying pathological traits.18 This phenome project will benefit from the investment in postgenomic technologies but must leverage the legacy of classic clinical investigation.13 Dynamic responses to small molecule probes (drugs or diagnostics) are one way in which directed efforts at phenotype discovery might be undertaken. These efforts might occur in vivo, as seen in recent work using ion-channel blockade to characterize repolarization reserve in individual subjects.15The power of combining biologically relevant assays with rich understanding of genetic mechanisms is already evident in malignant clonal disorders, in which genotypic prediction of the response to therapy has rapidly been implemented in the clinical arena.22 Overcoming the challenges to accurate definition of the pathogenicity of sequence variants is a major hurdle in Mendelian disease, although critical for realizing the full potential of genomic medicine. Developing more sophisticated methods to redefine disease phenotypes will be an important step in what may be a longer but exciting cycle of discovery and translation in the cardiovascular field. Ultimately, this new phenome may complement ongoing efforts to redefine the healthcare delivery interface.The opinions expressed in this editorial are not necessarily those of the authors or of the American Heart Association.DisclosuresNone.FootnotesCorrespondence to Calum A. MacRae, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Research Center and Cardiology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA 02114. E-mail [email protected] References 1 Janssens AC, Gwinn M, Bradley LA, Oostra BA, van Duijn CM, Khoury MJ. A critical appraisal of the scientific basis of commercial genomic profiles used to assess health risks and personalize health interventions. Am J Hum Genet. 2008; 82: 593–599.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Arad M, Seidman JG, Seidman CE. Phenotypic diversity in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Hum Mol Genet. 2002; 11: 2499–2506.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3 Fraser AG, Marcotte EM. A probabilistic view of gene function. Nat Genet. 2004; 36: 559–564.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4 Ellinor PT, MacRae CA. Ion channel mutations in AF: signal or noise? Heart Rhythm. 2008; 5: 436–437.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Kelly M, Semsarian C. Multiple mutations in genetic cardiovascular disease: a marker of disease severity? Circ Cardiovasc Genet. 2009: 2: 182–190.LinkGoogle Scholar6 Remme CA, Wilde AA, Bezzina CR. Cardiac sodium channel overlap syndromes: different faces of SCN5A mutations. Trends Cardiovasc Med. 2008; 18: 78–87.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 North KN, Yang N, Wattanasirichaigoon D, Mills M, Easteal S, Beggs AH. A common nonsense mutation results in alpha-actinin-3 deficiency in the general population. Nat Genet. 1999; 21: 353–254.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 McCarthy MI, Hirschhorn JN. Genome-wide association studies: potential next steps on a genetic journey. Hum Mol Genet. 2008; 17: R156–R165.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Birney E, Stamatoyannopoulos JA, Dutta A, Guigo R, Gingeras TR, Margulies EH, Weng Z, Snyder M, Dermitzakis ET, Thurman RE, Kuehn MS, Taylor CM, Neph S, Koch CM, Asthana S, Malhotra A, Adzhubei I, Greenbaum JA, Andrews RM, Flicek P, Boyle PJ, Cao H, Carter NP, Clelland GK, Davis S, Day N, Dhami P, Dillon SC, Dorschner MO, Fiegler H, Giresi PG, Goldy J, Hawrylycz M, Haydock A, Humbert R, James KD, Johnson BE, Johnson EM, Frum TT, Rosenzweig ER, Karnani N, Lee K, Lefebvre GC, Navas PA, Neri F, Parker SC, Sabo PJ, Sandstrom R, Shafer A, Vetrie D, Weaver M, Wilcox S, Yu M, Collins FS, Dekker J, Lieb JD, Tullius TD, Crawford GE, Sunyaev S, Noble WS, Dunham I, Denoeud F, Reymond A, Kapranov P, Rozowsky J, Zheng D, Castelo R, A.Frankish, J.Harrow, S.Ghosh, A.Sandelin, Hofacker IL, Baertsch R, Keefe D, Dike S, Cheng J, Hirsch HA, Sekinger EA, Lagarde J, Abril JF, Shahab A, Flamm C, Fried C, Hackermuller J, Hertel J, Lindemeyer M, Missal K, Tanzer A, Washietl S, Korbel J, Emanuelsson O, Pedersen JS, Holroyd N, Taylor R, Swarbreck D, Matthews N, Dickson MC, Thomas DJ, Weirauch MT, Gilbert J, Drenkow J, Bell I, Zhao X, Srinivasan KG, Sung WK, Ooi HS, Chiu KP, Foissac S, Alioto T, Brent M, Pachter L, Tress ML, Valencia A, Choo SW, Choo CY, Ucla C, Manzano C, Wyss C, Cheung E, Clark TG, Brown JB, Ganesh M, Patel S, Tammana H, Chrast J, Henrichsen CN, Kai C, Kawai J, Nagalakshmi U, Wu J, Lian Z, Lian J, Newburger P, Zhang X, Bickel P, Mattick JS, Carninci P, Hayashizaki Y, Weissman S, Hubbard T, Myers RM, Rogers J, Stadler PF, Lowe TM, Wei CL, Ruan Y, Struhl K, Gerstein M, Antonarakis SE, Fu Y, Green ED, Karaoz U, Siepel A, Taylor J, Liefer LA, Wetterstrand KA, Good PJ, Feingold EA, Guyer MS, Cooper GM, Asimenos G, Dewey CN, Hou M, Nikolaev S, Montoya-Burgos JI, Loytynoja A, Whelan S, Pardi F, Massingham T, Huang H, Zhang NR, Holmes I, Mullikin JC, Ureta-Vidal A, Paten B, Seringhaus M, Church D, Rosenbloom K, Kent WJ, Stone EA, Batzoglou S, Goldman N, Hardison RC, Haussler D, Miller W, Sidow A, Trinklein ND, Zhang ZD, Barrera L, Stuart R, King DC, Ameur A, Enroth S, Bieda MC, Kim J, Bhinge AA, Jiang N, Liu J, Yao F, Vega VB, Lee CW, Ng P, Yang A, Moqtaderi Z, Zhu Z, Xu X, Squazzo S, Oberley MJ, Inman D, Singer MA, Richmond TA, Munn KJ, Rada-Iglesias A, Wallerman O, Komorowski J, Fowler JC, Couttet P, Bruce AW, Dovey OM, Ellis PD, Langford CF, Nix DA, Euskirchen G, Hartman S, Urban AE, Kraus P, Van Calcar S, Heintzman N, Kim TH, Wang K, Qu C, Hon G, Luna R, Glass CK, Rosenfeld MG, Aldred SF, Cooper SJ, Halees A, Lin JM, Shulha HP, Xu M, Haidar JN, Yu Y, Iyer VR, Green RD, Wadelius C, Farnham PJ, Ren B, Harte RA, Hinrichs AS, Trumbower H, Clawson H, Hillman-Jackson J, Zweig AS, Smith K, Thakkapallayil A, Barber G, Kuhn RM, Karolchik D, Armengol L, Bird CP, de Bakker PI, Kern AD, Lopez-Bigas N, Martin JD, Stranger BE, Woodroffe A, Davydov E, Dimas A, Eyras E, Hallgrimsdottir IB, Huppert J, Zody MC, Abecasis GR, Estivill X, Bouffard GG, Guan X, Hansen NF, Idol JR, Maduro VV, Maskeri B, McDowell JC, Park M, Thomas PJ, Young AC, Blakesley RW, Muzny DM, Sodergren E, Wheeler DA, Worley KC, Jiang H, Weinstock GM, Gibbs RA, Graves T, Fulton R, Mardis ER, Wilson RK, Clamp M, Cuff J, Gnerre S, Jaffe DB, Chang JL, Lindblad-Toh K, Lander ES, Koriabine M, Nefedov M, Osoegawa K, Yoshinaga Y, Zhu B, de Jong PJ. Identification and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature. 2007; 447: 799–816.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Cardon LR, Bell JI. Association study designs for complex diseases. Nat Rev Genet. 2001; 2: 91–99.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Shendure J, Ji H. Next-generation DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2008; 26: 1135–1145.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Aerts JM, Groener JE, Kuiper S, Donker-Koopman WE, Strijland A, Ottenhoff R, van Roomen C, Mirzaian M, Wijburg FA, Linthorst GE, Vedder AC, Rombach SM, Cox-Brinkman J, Somerharju P, Boot RG, Hollak CE, Brady RO, Poorthuis BJ. Elevated globotriaosylsphingosine is a hallmark of Fabry disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008; 105: 2812–2817.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Anttila V, Kallela M, Oswell G, Kaunisto MA, Nyholt DR, Hamalainen E, Havanka H, Ilmavirta M, Terwilliger J, Sobel E, Peltonen L, Kaprio J, Farkkila M, Wessman M, Palotie A. Trait components provide tools to dissect the genetic susceptibility of migraine. Am J Hum Genet. 2006; 79: 85–99.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Roden DM. Defective ion channel function in the long QT syndrome: multiple unexpected mechanisms. J Mol Cell Cardiol. 2001; 33: 185–187.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Roden DM. Drug-induced prolongation of the QT interval. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 1013–1022.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Casimiro MC, Knollmann BC, Yamoah EN, Nie L, Vary JC Jr, Sirenko SG, Greene AE, Grinberg A, Huang SP, Ebert SN, Pfeifer K. Targeted point mutagenesis of mouse Kcnq1: phenotypic analysis of mice with point mutations that cause Romano-Ward syndrome in humans. Genomics. 2004; 84: 555–564.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17 Altshuler D, Daly MJ, Lander ES. Genetic mapping in human disease. Science. 2008; 322: 881–888.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Leboyer M, Bellivier F, Nosten-Bertrand M, Jouvent R, Pauls D, Mallet J. Psychiatric genetics: search for phenotypes. Trends Neurosci. 1998; 21: 102–105.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Singer E. "Phenome" project set to pin down subgroups of autism. Nat Med. 2005; 11: 583.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Walhout AJ, Reboul J, Shtanko O, Bertin N, Vaglio P, Ge H, Lee H, Doucette-Stamm L, Gunsalus KC, Schetter AJ, Morton DG, Kemphues KJ, Reinke V, Kim SK, Piano F, Vidal M. Integrating interactome, phenome, and transcriptome mapping data for the C. elegans germline. Curr Biol. 2002; 12: 1952–1958.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 Lee I, Lehner B, Crombie C, Wong W, Fraser AG, Marcotte EM. A single gene network accurately predicts phenotypic effects of gene perturbation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat Genet. 2008; 40: 181–188.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, Gurubhagavatula S, Okimoto RA, Brannigan BW, Harris PL, Haserlat SM, Supko JG, Haluska FG, Louis DN, Christiani DC, Settleman J, Haber DA. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350: 2129–2139.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByFox C, Hall J, Arnett D, Ashley E, Delles C, Engler M, Freeman M, Johnson J, Lanfear D, Liggett S, Lusis A, Loscalzo J, MacRae C, Musunuru K, Newby L, O'Donnell C, Rich S and Terzic A (2015) Future Translational Applications From the Contemporary Genomics Era, Circulation, 131:19, (1715-1736), Online publication date: 12-May-2015. Arndt A and MacRae C (2014) Genetic testing in cardiovascular diseases, Current Opinion in Cardiology, 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000055, 29:3, (235-240), Online publication date: 1-May-2014. MacRae C (2013) Mendelian Forms of Structural Cardiovascular Disease, Current Cardiology Reports, 10.1007/s11886-013-0399-6, 15:10, Online publication date: 1-Oct-2013. Rea G and Stewart F (2013) Genetic biomarkers in aortopathy, Biomarkers in Medicine, 10.2217/bmm.13.74, 7:4, (547-563), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. Lakdawala N (2013) Using Genetic Testing to Guide Therapeutic Decisions in Cardiomyopathy, Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine, 10.1007/s11936-013-0252-7, 15:4, (387-396), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013. Siegfried J, Morales A, Kushner J, Burkett E, Cowan J, Mauro A, Huggins G, Li D, Norton N and Hershberger R (2012) Return of Genetic Results in the Familial Dilated Cardiomyopathy Research Project, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 10.1007/s10897-012-9532-8, 22:2, (164-174), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2013. Abriel H and Zaklyazminskaya E (2012) A Modern Approach to Classify Missense Mutations in Cardiac Channelopathy Genes, Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 5:5, (487-489), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2012.Norton N, Robertson P, Rieder M, Züchner S, Rampersaud E, Martin E, Li D, Nickerson D and Hershberger R (2012) Evaluating Pathogenicity of Rare Variants From Dilated Cardiomyopathy in the Exome Era, Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics, 5:2, (167-174), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2012. Lakdawala N, Funke B, Baxter S, Cirino A, Roberts A, Judge D, Johnson N, Mendelsohn N, Morel C, Care M, Chung W, Jones C, Psychogios A, Duffy E, Rehm H, White E, Seidman J, Seidman C and Ho C (2012) Genetic Testing for Dilated Cardiomyopathy in Clinical Practice, Journal of Cardiac Failure, 10.1016/j.cardfail.2012.01.013, 18:4, (296-303), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2012. Lee M and MacRae C (2012) Revisiting risk stratification in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Do we need to start from scratch?, Heart Rhythm, 10.1016/j.hrthm.2011.10.023, 9:1, (64-65), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2012. Priori S, Napolitano C and MacRae C (2012) Genetic Mechanisms of Arrhythmia Muscle, 10.1016/B978-0-12-381510-1.00042-9, (601-623), . Hershberger R and Siegfried J (2011) Update 2011: Clinical and Genetic Issues in Familial Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.01.015, 57:16, (1641-1649), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2011. Jongbloed J, Pósafalvi A, Kerstjens-Frederikse W, Sinke R and van Tintelen J (2010) New clinical molecular diagnostic methods for congenital and inherited heart disease, Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics, 10.1517/17530059.2011.540566, 5:1, (9-24), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2011. April 2009Vol 2, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.109.864793 Originally publishedApril 1, 2009 Keywordsgenetic testinggeneticspathogenicityPDF download Advertisement SubjectsOmics
Referência(s)