
AbstractBackgroundSanger sequencing, still the standard technique for genetic testing in most diagnostic laboratories and until recently widely used in research, is gradually being complemented by next‐generation sequencing (NGS). No single mutation detection technique is however perfect in identifying all mutations. Therefore, we wondered to what extent inconsistencies between Sanger sequencing and NGS affect the molecular diagnosis of patients. Since mutations in SCN1A, the major gene implicated in epilepsy, are found in the majority of Dravet syndrome (DS) patients, we focused on missed SCN1A mutations.MethodsWe sent out a survey to 16 genetic centers performing SCN1A testing.ResultsWe collected data on 28 mutations initially missed using Sanger sequencing. All patients were falsely reported as SCN1A mutation‐negative, both due to technical limitations and human errors.ConclusionWe illustrate the pitfalls of Sanger sequencing and most importantly provide evidence that SCN1A mutations are an even more frequent cause of DS than already anticipated.
Sanger sequencing, Epilepsy, Neurosciences, 610, next‐generation sequencing, genetic screening, Original Articles, Dravet syndrome, Neurology and psychiatry, Biomedicine, Genetic screening, Dravet syndrome; Sanger sequencing; epilepsy; genetic screening; next‐generation sequencing, Next-generation sequencing, epilepsy, Original Article, Human medicine, Biology
Sanger sequencing, Epilepsy, Neurosciences, 610, next‐generation sequencing, genetic screening, Original Articles, Dravet syndrome, Neurology and psychiatry, Biomedicine, Genetic screening, Dravet syndrome; Sanger sequencing; epilepsy; genetic screening; next‐generation sequencing, Next-generation sequencing, epilepsy, Original Article, Human medicine, Biology
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 75 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
