Clinical Chemistry Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 43: 424-426, 1997;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Angrist, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Angrist, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 1997;43:424-426.)
© 1997 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Editorials

Does Phaster Mean Better?

Misha Angrist

Department of Genetics, Case Western Reserve University, 2109 Adelbert Rd. BRB-747B, Cleveland, OH 44106-4955, Fax 216-368-5857, E-mail mhast8@chimera.gene.cwru.edu

The accelerated pace of discovery of disease-causing genes has made efficient mutation detection a priority. Identification of DNA sequence variants allows human geneticists to determine, among other things, whether a candidate gene contributes to disease susceptibility, to identify new alleles at known loci, and to develop molecular diagnostic tests. Once a susceptibility gene has been identified, the investigator interested in molecular diagnostics or genotype–phenotype correlation must decide how to perform rapid, sensitive detection of mutations.

Grompe (1) divided these techniques into those that are most useful for identifying known mutations and those that are better for detecting novel mutations. However, he also allowed that no one method would be appropriate for all situations. Clearly, the choices investigators make will be based, in part, on what they are trying to accomplish (e.g., diagnostics vs population studies of allele frequencies); the goal will also dictate the level of sensitivity required and, conversely, the proportion of false positives or negatives that can be tolerated. Other factors such as knowledge of genomic size, sequence, and structure; availability of RNA/cDNA; and access to equipment and technical expertise will also influence the decision.

Since its identification in 1993 and 1994 as the (or, at least, a) major gene responsible for multiple endocrine neoplasia types 2A and 2B (MEN 2A, MEN 2B) and Hirschsprung disease (HSCR), respectively, the RET receptor tyrosine kinase1 has provided a real-time case study of some of the more vexing aspects of both the detection and interpretation of mutations (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). The latter problem, namely, correlating genotype with phenotype, is a fascinating one and has been considered elsewhere (8)(9)(10).

The former issue, determining the best approach to detecting RET mutations for a given set . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Acknowledgments


Footnotes


References






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.