Interpretation of Autosomal Recessive Kidney Diseases With "Presumed Homozygous" Pathogenic Variants Should Consider Technical Pitfalls

A false interpretation of homozygosity for pathogenic variants causing autosomal recessive disorders can lead to improper genetic counseling. The

When a variant analysis report shows that a patient of non-consanguineous parents has a pathogenic presumed homozygous variant, we should remember the need to assess real homozygosity for the variant, and a segregation analysis of the variants within the parental DNAs and comprehensive molecular tests to evaluate the potential molecular etiologies, such as a point variant and an overlapping exon deletion, UPD, germline mosaicism and de novo variant, are crucial.

Peripheral blood genomic DNA samples were extracted. Six short tandem repeats were used to verify the biological relationships between the probands and their parents. Quantitative PCR was performed to detect mutant exons with deletions. Single nucleotide polymorphism analysis and genotyping with polymorphic microsatellite markers were performed to identify uniparental disomy (UPD).

Each proband and his/her parents had biological relationships. Patients 2, 4, and 6 were characterized by large deletions encompassing a missense/small deletion in DGKE, NPHP1, and NPHS1, respectively. Patients 1 and 5 were caused by segmental UPD in NPHS2 and SMARCAL1, respectively. In patient 6, maternal UPD, mosaicism in paternal sperm or de novo variant in NPHP1 could not be ruled out. Conclusions: When a variant analysis report shows that a patient of non-consanguineous parents has a pathogenic presumed homozygous variant, we should remember the need to assess real homozygosity for the variant, and a segregation analysis of the variants within the parental DNAs and comprehensive molecular tests to evaluate the potential molecular etiologies, such as a point variant and an overlapping exon deletion, UPD, germline mosaicism and de novo variant, are crucial.