Genotypic analysis of a large cohort of patients with suspected atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS) is characterized by microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia, and renal impairment. Complement and coagulation gene variants have been associated with aHUS susceptibility. We assessed the diagnostic yield of a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel in a large cohort of Canadian patients with suspected aHUS. Molecular testing was performed on peripheral blood DNA samples from 167 patients, collected between May 2019 and December 2021, using a clinically validated NGS pipeline. Coding exons with 20 base pairs of flanking intronic regions for 21 aHUS-associated or candidate genes were enriched using a custom hybridization protocol. All sequence and copy number variants were assessed and classified following American College of Medical Genetics guidelines. Molecular diagnostic results were reported for four variants in three individuals (1.8%). Twenty-seven variants of unknown significance were identified in 25 (15%) patients, and 34 unique variants in candidate genes were identified in 28 individuals. An illustrative patient case describing two genetic alterations in complement genes is presented, highlighting that variable expressivity and incomplete penetrance must be considered when interpreting genetic data in patients with complement-mediated disease, alongside the potential additive effects of genetic variants on aHUS pathophysiology. In this cohort of patients with suspected aHUS, using clinical pipelines for genetic testing and variant classification, pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants occurred in a very small percentage of patients. Our results highlight the ongoing challenges in variant classification following NGS panel testing in patients with suspected aHUS, alongside the need for clear testing guidance in the clinical setting. KEY MESSAGES: • Clinical molecular testing for disease associated genes in aHUS is challenging. • Challenges include patient selection criteria, test validation, and interpretation. • Most variants were of uncertain significance (31.7% of patients; VUS + candidates). • Their clinical significance may be elucidated as more evidence becomes available. • Low molecular diagnostic rate (1.8%), perhaps due to strict classification criteria. • Case study identified two likely pathogenic variants; one each in MCP/CD46 and CFI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".