Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Evaluation of somatic and/or germline mosaicism in congenital malformation of the eye

A Correction to this article was published on 02 December 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Microphthalmia, Anophthalmia and Coloboma (MAC) form a spectrum of congenital eye malformations responsible for severe visual impairment. Despite the exploration of hundreds of genes by High-Throughput Sequencing (HTS), most of the patients remain without genetic diagnosis. One explanation could be the not yet demonstrated involvement of somatic mosaicism (undetected by conventional analysis pipelines) in those patients. Furthermore, the proportion of parental germline mosaicism in presumed de novo variations is still unknown in ocular malformations. Thus, using dedicated bioinformatics pipeline designed to detect mosaic variants, we reanalysed the sequencing data obtained from a 119 ocular development genes panel performed on blood samples of 78 probands with sporadic MAC without genetic diagnosis. Using the same HTS strategy, we sequenced 80 asymptomatic parents of 41 probands carrying a disease-causing variant in an ocular development gene considered de novo after Sanger sequencing of both parents. Reanalysis of the previously sequencing data did not find any mosaic variant in probands without genetic diagnosis. However, HTS of parents revealed undetected SOX2 and PAX6 mosaic variants in two parents. Finally, this work, performed on two large cohorts of patients with MAC spectrum, provides for the first time an overview of the interest of looking for mosaicism in ocular development disorders. Somatic mosaicism does not appear to be frequent in MAC spectrum and might explain only few diagnoses. Thus, other approaches such as whole genome sequencing should be considered in those patients. Parental mosaicism is however not that rare (around 5%) and challenging for genetic counselling.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Pedigrees and molecular results of the three families with suspected or confirmed parental mosaicism.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Newly described variants have been added to ClinVar database (SCV002583597 - SCV002583623).

Change history

References

  1. Plaisancié J, Ceroni F, Holt R, Zazo Seco C, Calvas P, Chassaing N, et al. Genetics of anophthalmia and microphthalmia. Part 1: non-syndromic anophthalmia/microphthalmia. Hum Genet. 2019;138:799–830.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Slavotinek A. Genetics of anophthalmia and microphthalmia. Part 2: syndromes associated with anophthalmia–microphthalmia. Hum Genet. 2019;138:831–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patel N, Khan AO, Alsahli S, Abdel-Salam G, Nowilaty SR, Mansour AM, et al. Genetic investigation of 93 families with microphthalmia or posterior microphthalmos. Clin Genet. 2018;93:1210–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haug P, Koller S, Maggi J, Lang E, Feil S, Wlodarczyk A, et al. Whole exome sequencing in coloboma/microphthalmia: identification of novel and recurrent variants in seven genes. Genes. 2021;12:65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Veltman JA, Brunner HG. De novo mutations in human genetic disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:565–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Spinner NB, Conlin LK. Mosaicism and clinical genetics. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014;166:397–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stosser MB, Lindy AS, Butler E, Retterer K, Piccirillo-Stosser CM, Richard G, et al. High frequency of mosaic pathogenic variants in genes causing epilepsy-related neurodevelopmental disorders. Genet Med. 2018;20:403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Erickson RP. Somatic gene mutation and human disease other than cancer: an update. Mutat Res. 2010;705:96–106.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Acuna-Hidalgo R, Bo T, Kwint MP, van de Vorst M, Pinelli M, Veltman JA, et al. Post-zygotic point mutations are an underrecognized source of de novo genomic variation. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;97:67–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Tarilonte M, Morín M, Ramos P, Galdós M, Blanco-Kelly F, Villaverde C, et al. Parental mosaicism in PAX6 causes intra-familial variability: implications for genetic counseling of congenital aniridia and microphthalmia. Front Genet. 2018;9:479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Chassaing N, Gilbert-Dussardier B, Nicot F, Fermeaux V, Encha-Razavi F, Fiorenza M, et al. Germinal mosaicism and familial recurrence of a SOX2 mutation with highly variable phenotypic expression extending from AEG syndrome to absence of ocular involvement. Am J Med Genet A. 2007;143A:289–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Faivre L, Williamson KA, Faber V, Laurent N, Grimaldi M, Thauvin-Robinet C, et al. Recurrence of SOX2 anophthalmia syndrome with gonosomal mosaicism in a phenotypically normal mother. Am J Med Genet A. 2006;140:636–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Suzuki J, Azuma N, Dateki S, Soneda S, Muroya K, Yamamoto Y, et al. Mutation spectrum and phenotypic variation in nine patients with SOX2 abnormalities. J Hum Genet. 2014;59:353–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Plaisancié J, Tarilonte M, Ramos P, Jeanton-Scaramouche C, Gaston V, Dollfus H, et al. Implication of non-coding PAX6 mutations in aniridia. Hum Genet. 2018;137:831–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet J. 2011;17:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Li H, Durbin R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:1754–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Benjamin D, Sato T, Cibulskis K, Getz G, Stewart C, Lichtenstein L. Calling Somatic SNVs and Indels with Mutect2. 2019:861054.

  18. Lai Z, Markovets A, Ahdesmaki M, Chapman B, Hofmann O, McEwen R, et al. VarDict: a novel and versatile variant caller for next-generation sequencing in cancer research. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:e108–e108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Garrison E, Marth G. Haplotype-based variant detection from short-read sequencing. 2012.arXiv:1207.3907v2 [q-bio.GN].

  20. Wright CF, Prigmore E, Rajan D, Handsaker J, McRae J, Kaplanis J, et al. Clinically-relevant postzygotic mosaicism in parents and children with developmental disorders in trio exome sequencing data. Nat Commun. 2019;10:2985.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. King DA, Sifrim A, Fitzgerald TW, Rahbari R, Hobson E, Homfray T, et al. Detection of structural mosaicism from targeted and whole-genome sequencing data. Genome Res. 2017;27:1704–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Nizon M, Henry M, Michot C, Baumann C, Bazin A, Bessières B, et al. A series of 38 novel germline and somatic mutations of NIPBL in Cornelia de Lange syndrome. Clin Genet. 2016;89:584–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kline AD, Moss JF, Selicorni A, Bisgaard A-M, Deardorff MA, Gillett PM, et al. Diagnosis and management of Cornelia de Lange syndrome: first international consensus statement. Nat Rev Genet. 2018;19:649–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Daich Varela M, Hufnagel RB, Guan B, Blain D, Sapp JC, Gropman AL, et al. Clinical diagnosis of presumed SOX2 gonadosomatic mosaicism. Ophthalmic Genet. 2021;42:320–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ohuchi H, Sato K, Habuta M, Fujita H, Bando T. Congenital eye anomalies: more mosaic than thought? Congenit Anom. 2019;59:56–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shima H, Ishii A, Wada Y, Kizawa J, Yokoi T, Azuma N, et al. SOX2 nonsense mutation in a patient clinically diagnosed with non-syndromic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism. Endocr J. 2017;64:813–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ragge NK, Brown AG, Poloschek CM, Lorenz B, Henderson RA, Clarke MP, et al. Heterozygous mutations of OTX2 cause severe ocular malformations. Am J Hum Genet. 2005;76:1008–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Robinson DO, Howarth RJ, Williamson KA, Heyningen V, van, Beal SJ, Crolla JA. Genetic analysis of chromosome 11p13 and the PAX6 gene in a series of 125 cases referred with aniridia. Am J Med Genet A. 2008;146A:558–69.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mitsuhashi S, Matsumoto N. Long-read sequencing for rare human genetic diseases. J Hum Genet. 2020;65:11–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Dai C, Cheng D, Li W, Zeng S, Lu G, Zhang Q. Identification of paternal germline mosaicism by MicroSeq and targeted next‐generation sequencing. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2020;8. https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.1394.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciated the generous support received from patients and their families and are grateful for the contributions of physicians who evaluated or followed up patients with ocular malformation.

Funding

Patients were recruited through the Rare Diseases Cohorts (RaDiCo) programme which is funded by the French National Research Agency under the specific programme “Investments for the Future”, Cohort grant agreement ANR-10-COHO-0003.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors have actively participated in data collection or interpretation and have revised and approved the manuscript. BC and JP designed experiments and write the first version of manuscript. GM, YC, CVD, PC collected data from patients. VG performed sequencing. VI, CH, and FE performed bioinformatic analysis. BC, NC, and JP performed analysis and interpretation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie Plaisancié.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

Patients gave informed consent to genetic analyses and research. This study is a retrospective study based on the exploitation of usual care data. A submission at an ethic committee is not required according to the French ethic and regulatory law (public health code).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: All authors’ surnames and given names had been swapped.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chesneau, B., Ivashchenko, V., Habib, C. et al. Evaluation of somatic and/or germline mosaicism in congenital malformation of the eye. Eur J Hum Genet 31, 526–530 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01234-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01234-3

Search

Quick links