Advantages of whole-exome sequencing over immunomapping in 67 Brazilian patients with epidermolysis bullosa

• Published in: Anais brasileiros de dermatología 2024-05, Vol.99 (3), p.350-356
• Main Authors: Kelmann, Samantha Vernaschi, Stephan, Bruno de Oliveira, Barbosa, Silvia Maria de Macedo, Polastrini, Rita Tiziana Verardo, Oliveira, Zilda Najjar Prado de, Rivitti-Machado, Maria Cecília, Spolador, Gustavo Marquezani, Honjo, Rachel Sayuri, Saida, Ken, Matsumoto, Naomichi, Kim, Chong Ae
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: DERMATOLOGY; Epidermolysis bullosa; Exome; Genetics; Original
• ISSN: 0365-0596; 1806-4841; 1806-4841
• DOI: 10.1016/j.abd.2023.07.002

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is characterized by skin fragility and blistering. In Brazil, the diagnosis is usually obtained through immunomapping, which involves a skin biopsy. Most recently, whole exome sequencing (WES) has become an important tool for the diagnosis of the subtypes of EB, providing information on prognosis as well as allowing appropriate genetic counseling for the families. To compare the results of immunomapping and molecular analysis and to describe the characteristics of a Brazilian cohort of patients with EB. Patients were submitted to clinical evaluation and WES using peripheral blood samples. WES results were compared to those obtained from immunomapping testing from skin biopsies. 67 patients from 60 families were classified: 47 patients with recessive dystrophic EB (DEB), 4 with dominant DEB, 15 with EB simplex (EBS), and 1 with junctional EB (JEB). Novel causative variants were: 10/60 (16%) in COL7A1 associated with recessive DEB and 3 other variants in dominant DEB; one homozygous variant in KRT5 and another homozygous variant in PLEC, both associated with EBS. Immunomapping was available for 59 of the 67 patients and the results were concordant with exome results in 37 (62%), discordant in 13 (22%), and inconclusive in 9 patients (15%). Even though EB is a rare disease, for statistical purposes, the number of patients evaluated by this cohort can still be considered limited; other than that, there was a significant difference between the proportion of types of EB (only one case with JEB, against more than 50 with DEB), which unfortunately represents a selection bias. Also, for a small subset of families, segregation (usually through Sanger sequencing) was not an option, usually due to deceased or unknown parent status (mostly the father). Although immunomapping has been useful in services where molecular studies are not available, this invasive method may provide a misdiagnosis or an inconclusive result in about 1/3 of the patients. This study shows that WES is an effective method for the diagnosis and genetic counseling of EB patients.