Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Early Access
    • Current Issue
    • Kidney360 Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Clinical Images
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • More
    • About Kidney360
    • Advertising
    • Disqus Commenting
    • Reprint Information
    • Feedback
    • Email Alerts
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • CJASN
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • CJASN
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Early Access
    • Current Issue
    • Kidney360 Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
  • Clinical Images
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Editorial Team
  • More
    • About Kidney360
    • Advertising
    • Disqus Commenting
    • Reprint Information
    • Feedback
    • Email Alerts
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow Kidney360 on Twitter
  • Community Forum
  • Kidney360 RSS
Original InvestigationsGenetics

Clinical Utility of Genetic Testing in the Precision Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Patients with Kidney and Urinary Tract Diseases

Nasim Bekheirnia, Kevin E. Glinton, Linda Rossetti, Joshua Manor, Wuyan Chen, Dolores J. Lamb, Michael C. Braun and Mir Reza Bekheirnia
Kidney360 January 2021, 2 (1) 90-104; DOI: https://doi.org/10.34067/KID.0002272020
Nasim Bekheirnia
1Section of Pediatric Renal Disease, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kevin E. Glinton
2Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Rossetti
2Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joshua Manor
2Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wuyan Chen
3PreventionGenetics Diagnostic Laboratory, Marshfield, Wisconsin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dolores J. Lamb
4Department of Urology, Englander Institute for Precision Medicine and Center for Reproductive Genomics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael C. Braun
1Section of Pediatric Renal Disease, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mir Reza Bekheirnia
1Section of Pediatric Renal Disease, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
2Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading

Visual Abstract

Figure1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint

Abstract

Background As genetic testing increasingly integrates into the practice of nephrology, our understanding of the basis of many kidney disorders has exponentially increased. Given this, we recently initiated a Renal Genetics Clinic (RGC) at our large, urban children’s hospital for patients with kidney disorders.

Methods Genetic testing was performed in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratories using single gene testing, multigene panels, chromosomal microarray, or exome sequencing.

Results A total of 192 patients were evaluated in this clinic, with cystic kidney disease (49/192) being the most common reason for referral, followed by congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (41/192) and hematuria (38/192). Genetic testing was performed for 158 patients, with an overall diagnostic yield of 81 out of 158 (51%). In the 16 out of 81 (20%) of patients who reached a genetic diagnosis, medical or surgical treatment of the patients were affected, and previous clinical diagnoses were changed to more accurate genetic diagnoses in 12 of 81 (15%) patients.

Conclusions Our genetic testing provided an accurate diagnosis for children and, in some cases, led to further diagnoses in seemingly asymptomatic family members and changes to overall medical management. Genetic testing, as facilitated by such a specialized clinical setting, thus appears to have clear utility in the diagnosis and counseling of patients with a wide range of kidney manifestations.

  • genetics
  • data collection
  • genetic testing
  • kidney disease
  • Renal Genetics Clinic
  • urologic diseases

Introduction

Genetic testing has increasingly integrated into the practice of different specialties in medicine and surgery. Within the field of nephrology, in particular, the availability of such testing led to the rapid growth and expansion of our knowledge of the clinical spectrum of monogenic kidney diseases. The genetic etiology of kidney diseases, such as polycystic kidney disease, Alport syndrome, several forms of monogenic steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS), and nephronophthisis has grown and can now be identified in a significant portion of affected individuals. In patients with SRNS, 30% of those diagnosed before age 25 will have a pathogenic variant in one of 30 known SRNS genes (1). Even in a condition not commonly associated with genetic causes, such as nephrolithiasis, around 15% of individuals have a specific underlying genetic etiology (2). Given the growing number of recognized disease-causing gene defects, multigene panels are now available and, in some cases, can provide adequate diagnostic coverage (3). Similarly, exome sequencing (ES) has immense utility in the diagnosis of adults and children with a variety of disorders (4,5).

With the expanding number of candidate genes and the increasing complexity of genetic testing available, the need for more comprehensive diagnostic evaluations for such patients has also increased. To address this need, a Renal Genetics Clinic (RGC) at Texas Children’s Hospital (TCH) was formed in February 2015. Patients are referred from a variety of care settings, including the Pediatric Nephrology Clinic and various inpatient/outpatient services at TCH. Through this clinic, patients undergo a thorough genetic evaluation with a focus on kidney-specific malformations, complications, or diseases. Furthermore, given the nature of the clinic, family members of affected individuals can be evaluated, allowing us to provide guidance, if needed, for family planning. Extensive research shows the key roles genetic defects play in pediatric kidney disorders, and a growing number of studies are evaluating the utility of clinical genetics evaluation and genetic testing in the clinical practice (6,7). However, there is still a need to expand the knowledge in the intersection of clinical nephrology and clinical genetics. The specific objective of this study is to assess the role of clinical genetics in precision diagnosis and management of early onset pediatric kidney diseases. We hypothesized that genetic evaluation improves patient care in pediatric nephrology. Diagnostic yield and effect on medical management is reported for the first 4 years of this clinic’s operations.

Materials and Methods

Study Participants

Patients were all evaluated within the RGC at TCH. The clinic was initially held on only one half day per month, but this was increased to a full clinical day monthly after approximately 18 months. Patients were referred by pediatric nephrologists on the basis of their expert opinions. Patients were interviewed and examined by a clinical geneticist, and appropriate genetic testing was recommended on the basis of their clinical history, presentation, and family history. Pretest counseling was provided. Patients consented for ES on the basis of the performing Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment (CLIA) laboratories’ consent forms that include secondary findings (medically actionable and carrier status). The genetic variants reported in this study were classified only by CLIA laboratories. Reported variants by CLIA laboratories were evaluated by a clinical geneticist during clinical visits, aiming to provide a clinical diagnosis and to discuss pertinent management. Clinical information on subjects was collected retrospectively for the period of February 2015 to June 2019. All patients seen during this timeframe were eligible to participate. Institutional-review-board approval was obtained to perform a retrospective cross-sectional study to investigate the yield and effect of genetics evaluation. The outcome of the study was defined as the “impact” of genetic evaluation on diagnosis and management of patients, and this impact was classified into five categories: (1) effect on medical and/or surgical treatment (L1), (2) change of medical diagnosis (L2), (3) providing diagnostic certainty (L3), (4) subsequent evaluation of other body-system involvement (L4), and (5) cascade family member testing (L5). This definition, with the associated categories, has not been previously published; however, it is proposed as a future methodology for other RGCs, because it provides an overarching scoring system to combine impact stratification between clinical genetics and pediatric nephrology. The scoring system was created by a clinical geneticist and a pediatric nephrologist. To minimize the bias regarding scoring of the outcome, a pediatric nephrologist, blinded to the identifiers, reviewed the allocated scores.

Definition of Proteinuria and Nephrotic Syndrome

Patients with proteinuria and hematuria were referred from pediatric nephrology service at TCH. Proteinuria was defined as urinary protein excretion >100 mg/m2 per day or 4 mg/m2 per hour. Nephrotic-range proteinuria was defined as ≥1000 mg/m2 per day or 40 mg/m2 per hour. Microscopic hematuria was defined as the presence of more than five red blood cells per high-power field (40× magnification). CKD was defined on the basis of fulfilling one of the following clinical criteria (8):

  • GFR of <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 for >3 months with implications for health, regardless of whether other CKD markers are present.

  • GFR >60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 that is accompanied by evidence of structural damage or other markers of functional kidney abnormalities, including proteinuria, albuminuria, renal tubular disorders, or pathologic abnormalities detected by histology or inferred by imaging. ESKD was defined as a GFR <15 ml/min per 1.73 m2.

Genetic Testing

Testing performed by CLIA laboratories include disease-specific panels (Supplemental Table 1), chromosomal microarray (CMA), expanded next-generation sequencing panels (Total BluePrint), and ES (trio or proband only [when both parents were not available]). When appropriate, combinations of these tests were also performed to optimize diagnostic yield in cases with atypical or unclear phenotypes. Overall, for patients with isolated hematuria or proteinuria, specific panels were recommended first. For cystic kidney with suspicion of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), a PKD panel was recommended. For patients with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT), ESKD of unknown etiology, and suspected nephronophthisis, broad genetic testing was recommended. Specific panels were also recommended for specific rare kidney diseases (e.g., Gitelman syndrome and renal tubular acidosis). In general, for CAKUT, we tried to order CMA first and use ES when CMA was not diagnostic. For proteinuria, when we did not have an identifiable genetic variant by the panel, ES was recommended (9). Comparison analysis of detection rate between different testing modalities was not performed because the choice of genetic testing was not randomized, and, therefore, is biased to compare the detection rate of different genetic testing modalities. We expect that broad genetic testing (e.g., CMA/ES) has a higher yield; however, this requires further investigation and depends on other factors, such as patient population and reasons for referral. Genomic DNA was isolated from peripheral leukocytes obtained via venipuncture or, less commonly, from saliva.

Interpretation of Genetic Findings

Sequencing or copy number data were generated in CLIA-certified laboratories, and data were reviewed and interpreted by clinical molecular geneticists at the performing laboratories. The reported results were correlated with clinical and family history of the patients, and a final diagnosis was confirmed by a clinical geneticist at RGC. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics guidelines were followed throughout this process for consistent interpretation (10).

Venn-Diagram Generation

The scoring system was processed by the library in Pandas. Because this is a five-class comparison, circular Venn diagrams are challenging. Therefore, oval-shaped Venn diagrams were chosen. Modified application-programming-interface calls were used in the Python environment to create the Venn diagram in this manuscript.

Results

A total of 192 patients were evaluated in this clinic from February 2015 to June 2019 (Table 1). Patients ranged in age from 1 day of life to 25 years of age, with a mean age of 8.7 years (SD, 6.0 years). Patients were from diverse ethnic backgrounds. The most common reason for referral was cystic kidney disease in 49 patients (26%), followed by CAKUT in 41 patients (21%), 38 patients with hematuria (20%), and 21 patients with proteinuria (11%). A further 43 patients (23%) were seen for “other” clinical diagnoses, including nephronophthisis, nephrocalcinosis, developmental delay combined with kidney disease, or overlapping phenotypes (Supplemental Table 2). Of the 192 patients, three were asymptomatic with a positive family history of ADPKD. Considering the ethics of genetic screening in asymptomatic children, genetic testing was only recommended for their affected parent. In addition, parents of two patients were not interested in genetic testing at the initial visit. Genetic testing was performed for 158 of 187 patients (85%). We were not able to perform genetic testing for 29 individuals (12 because of insurance denial, 16 families were not interested in pursuing genetic testing, and one was not available at the time of testing). Information regarding detection rates of different tests among variable indications for referral can be found in Supplemental Table 3. Among 158 patients, 81 (51%) had positive diagnostic results (Table 2). The type of genetic testing (e.g., panel, CMA, ES, and Total BluePrint) and post-test recommendations are summarized in Table 2. In an additional five patients, the patients’ phenotypes were partially explained by genetic workup (Supplemental Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Demographics and indications for referrals among 192 patients evaluated at Renal Genetics Clinic between 2/2015 and 6/2019

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Demographics, genetic information, and effect on management for patients with diagnostic genetic results

Among 158 patients, 115 variants of uncertain significance were detected in 42 patients. These variants were all reviewed by a clinical geneticist, their significance was reevaluated on the basis of the patient’s history, and further recommendations were provided to clarify their significance. The challenges of interpretation of these variants of uncertain significance are summarized in Supplemental Table 5.

Given the breadth of diagnoses encountered, no single test was universally applicable to every patient. Different tests, or a combination of tests, were recommended and completed for patients depending on the specificity of their clinical phenotype or reported history through different CLIA laboratories. For patients with CAKUT (41 patients; tests completed for 33), for instance, CMA or a combination of CMA with ES ultimately led to a diagnostic yield of 42% (14/33; including the partially diagnosed cases). However, in patients who presented with cystic kidney, the use of a multigene panel was the most successful approach to provide a genetic diagnosis in 79% (15/19) patients. Multigene panel testing also had a high detection rate for patients with proteinuria (seven out of ten patients; 70%) and hematuria (ten out of 15 patients; 67%).

Our testing approach led to the identification of pathogenic or likely pathogenic single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in 34 genes (Table 2). Similarly, 11 different pathogenic or likely pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) were also identified, ranging from single exon deletions to large megabase-sized deletions of multiple genes. Pathogenic SNVs or CNVs were found most commonly in PKD1 (15), followed by COL4A5 (14), HNF1B (4), COL4A4 (4), WT1 (4), and PKHD1 (4). Secondary findings of BRCA2 pathogenic variants were identified in two families; they were provided with appropriate genetic counseling.

Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in PKD1, their strength, and age of diagnoses are summarized in Table 3. Out of 15 variants in PKD1, seven are truncating, four are missense, one was a partial gene deletion, one was an in-frame indel, and two were splice-site variants that likely do not cause truncation, but cause exon skipping. Missense variants all have a Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion score of >20, which put them in the top 1% of deleterious variants in the human genome. Therefore, these variants are likely to put the patients at high risk of progression. However, truncating variants pose a higher chance of reaching ESKD at a younger age (11).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Genetic information and the strength of the genetic variants for patients diagnosed with pathogenic PKD1 variant

Effect on Precision Diagnosis and Management

To assess the effect of genetic testing and evaluation on patients’ management, each patient with a positive result was scored according to a five-level scoring system as defined in the Methods. Out of 81 positive diagnostic results, 16 (20%) affected immediate medical or L1, and 12 (15%) prior L2 Details regarding L1 and L2 effects on management are summarized in Table 4. The most common indication of referral among these patients with L1 impact was nephrotic syndrome or proteinuria, a condition where medication adjustment, by avoiding immunosuppression, became possible. Other immediate benefits of genetic evaluation included surgical decision making regarding the need for prophylactic (patient number RGC-0034) or therapeutic nephrectomy (RGC-0186) in patients with pathogenic variants in WT1. In three patients (RGC-0118, RGC-0185, and RGC-0191), targeted treatment recommendations with directed pharmacotherapy (indomethacin, magnesium, and acetazolamide) became possible after identification of underlying genetic diagnosis (KCNJ1, TPRM6, and CACNA1S).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Details of effect on management (L1 and L2) among patients with diagnostic results

Among 12 patients with L2 impact, four diagnoses were changed from FSGS to Alport syndrome. Additionally, in 53 patients, diagnostic certainty became possible only with genetic testing (L3). Other effects on management included evaluation of other body organ systems (L4) and cascade family testing (L5) in 58 and 47 patients, respectively. Although cascade testing should have been done for every patient with kidney disease attributable to an autosomal dominant genetic variant, this was not possible in some families due to health-insurance coverage of parents or other family members. In three families, reproductive genetic counseling immediately affected the family’s decision making for their family planning. Figure 1 summarizes the overlaps and relationships between five levels of the proposed scoring system. Other important effects on management included screening of potential living related kidney donors, planning for solid organ transplantation, and accurate genetic counseling. The discovery of inherited pathogenic variants in autosomal dominant disease genes led, for instance, to the discovery of previously unrecognized clinical abnormalities in parents (e.g., patients RGC-0003 and RGC-0087) and the illumination of unusual inheritance patterns (e.g., pseudodominance in patient RGC-0080).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Overlaps between L1, L2, L3, L4, and L5 are demonstrated as a Venn diagram. In 3 patients both L1 and L2 were noted. L1, effect on medical and/or surgical treatment; L2, change of medical diagnosis; L3, providing diagnostic certainty; L4, subsequent evaluation of other body-system involvement; L5, cascade family member testing.

Discussion

In this study, the detection rate (81/158, 51%) and the clinical utility of genetic evaluation/testing was demonstrated for pediatric kidney disorders in an RGC setting. In 31% (25/81) of the patients with positive results, immediate medical/surgical treatment was affected, or the prior diagnoses (achieved by either biopsy or clinical evaluation) were changed.

This clinic is staffed by several pediatric nephrologists with an interest in inherited kidney diseases, a clinical geneticist, and a genetic counselor, and is supported by a strong clinical and human genetics program at Baylor College of Medicine. The detection rate of 51% is within the range of other centers around the world and in the United States. We believe the detection rate can vary on the basis of the reasons for referral and the number of patients assessed. The clinical impact scoring system proposed in this study can potentially be applicable to other centers.

RGCs are the optimal mechanism for integrating a comprehensive genetic evaluation with appropriate molecular testing on a clinical basis (14). This kind of clinic also allows for a family-centered approach, where unaffected relatives may also be evaluated and counseled on their risks for kidney disease. Examples of these clinics in Australia, the United Kingdom, and China showed diagnostic yields of 46% (15), 42% (16), and 42% (7), respectively. In the United States, there are several kidney genetics clinics. In a recent publication, a detection rate of 60% was identified among 41 patients who are mostly in the adult age range (17).Our diagnosis yield is at the same scale, and the variations in detection rate could be explained by following factors. First, the indications of referral among these different clinic models are not the same. Second, broad genetic testing options were available in our center. Lastly, patients were referred with rigorous initial evaluation by pediatric nephrologists. A less-stringent referral criterion may lead to a larger number of patients being seen with a higher number of total positive diagnoses, but with an overall lower diagnosis rate.

Our testing approach used various combinations of targeted panels, CMA, and ES (by CLIA laboratories). This resulted in the identification of pathogenic SNVs in 34 different genes and 11 unique pathogenic CNVs. Of these changes, 21 are novel and have not previously been reported in published databases (Table 2). These novel variants, although not previously reported, are classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic on the basis of American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics criteria by board-certified clinical molecular geneticists at CLIA-certified laboratories. In terms of testing performance, our diagnostic yield is higher than the reported yield of ES for adult patients with kidney disease in one study (18), although a higher detection rate was reported in another study with more selective criteria for testing (17).Overall, these findings may highlight the increased contribution of genetic abnormalities in the pediatric population. The diagnostic rate of CAKUT in this cohort is higher than that expected from the literature (19). This is likely due to stringent referral criteria that select patients who are syndromic.

Our patients were placed into one of five categories on the basis of their clinical presentation and presumed diagnosis. Each category varied in terms of which genetic testing was felt to be the most appropriate both initially and upon follow-up. For instance, panel testing (known to be cost-effective and specific) was very useful in cases of both cystic kidney disease and hematuria. For patients with cystic kidneys in particular, a panel appeared to be a good initial diagnostic choice because of the high prevalence of PKD1 pathogenic variants. If this test result was negative, or if patients had other concerning physical or clinical abnormalities, expanded testing could be pursued with ES or CMA. This allowed us to identify diagnostic variants in genes not previously considered. For instance, a patient initially referred for cystic kidney disease was later found to have a pathogenic variant in HNF1B, more commonly associated with CAKUT (patient RGC-0164); whereas another patient was diagnosed with biallelic variants in BBS12, indicative of Bardet–Biedl syndrome (patient RGC-0117).

Although ADPKD can be diagnosed by imaging studies, genetic diagnoses add certainty and might be the only option for an accurate diagnosis in young children. In this study, only children with cystic kidneys who had a positive family history or clinical suspicion of ADPKD underwent genetic testing. As shown in recent literature (20,21), genotype information in patients with ADPKD can provide prognostic value and can also be used to manage patients differently on the basis of newly developed therapies. Certainly, this is true when the patients reach the age of 18 when therapy can be provided, if indicated.

Most importantly, genetic evaluation resulted in recommendations for immediate medical or surgical treatment in 20% (16/81) of patients. In addition, the original diagnosis in 15% (12/81) of patients was changed. The benefits of L1 impact on management included targeted therapies and preventing the use of inappropriate treatments (i.e., corticosteroids where there was no expectation of benefit). We compared diagnosis pre- and postgenetic evaluation and concluded that genetic testing improved diagnostic accuracy given that the diagnosis might be different from what was previously achieved by clinical or pathologic evaluations. The change of diagnosis from FSGS to Alport syndrome, reported in this study, was also published by other investigators (22). Additional benefits included reducing the use of invasive diagnostic procedures, such as kidney biopsy. Reduction of genetic testing costs will ultimately result in the precise diagnosis of patients for whom an initial syndromic diagnosis was not clinically suspected. In addition to a confirmatory diagnosis, a genetic diagnosis may also provide prognostic information, establish a targeted surveillance of other organs, and facilitate kidney transplant and reproductive planning (6).

However, this study has the following limitations. First, the design of this study is retrospective and there is still a need for larger, prospective studies similar to the recent research published from an Australian group (23). Second, we did not study the patients’ viewpoints of genetic or genomic testing. Third, although our study included a range of diagnoses, the relatively small overall number/type of patients evaluated in this clinic may affect generalization of our data. Fourth, only a pediatric population was studied. Finally, although we have investigated the health effects of genetic testing, the economic effect of this testing in kidney disease was not studied.

Strengths of this study include the following: (1) the ability to perform advanced clinical genetic testing for a large proportion of our patients; (2) the diversity of the cohort, specifically their ethnicity, kidney phenotypes, and clinical diagnoses; (3) access to world-class pediatric nephrology and clinical genetics groups; and (4) affiliation with one of the largest children’s hospitals in the United States.

In conclusion, results of RGC in a single center is summarized to define the effect of genetic testing and evaluation on management of patients in a pediatric nephrology clinical setting. An overall detection rate of 51% is in line with other reports across the world and in the United States. A new classification for the effect of clinical genetic evaluation on management of patients is provided. In 20% of the patients, medical or surgical management was modified, and clinical diagnosis was changed to a more accurate genetic diagnosis in 15% of the patients.

Disclosures

W. Chen reports receiving other from PreventionGenetics LLC, during the conduct of the study, and other from PreventionGenetics LLC, outside the submitted work. D.J. Lamb reports receiving other from Celmatix, and other from Fellow, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This study was supported, in part, by National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants K12DK0083014 (under the Multidisciplinary K12 Urologic Research Career Development Program; M. R. Bekheirnia was a K12 scholar) and R01DK078121 to D.J. Lamb. D.J. Lamb is also supported, in part, by the New York Community Trust Frederick J. and Theresa Dow Wallace Fund. This study was also supported by start-up funds from the Renal Section, Department of Pediatrics at TCH, Baylor College of Medicine, and Woods Family Foundation.

Supplemental Material

This article contains supplemental material online at http://kidney360.asnjournals.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.34067/KID.0002272020/-/DCSupplemental.

Supplemental Table 1. Panels (utilized in this study) and the genes included in each of them.

Supplemental Table 2. "Other" indications for referral.

Supplemental Table 3. Detection rates of different tests among indications for referral.

Supplemental Table 4. Impact on management in patients with partial diagnosis.

Supplemental Table 5. Demographics, phenotype, genetic variants’ information, clinician’s comments and recommendations for patients without diagnostic result who were found to have variants of uncertain significance (VUS).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the many patients and their family members. The authors would like to thank Mr. Yash R. Choksi (B.S.) for his kind contribution to create a Venn diagram demonstrating the overlap of different levels of the clinical impact scoring system. The authors would additionally like to thank all referring physicians from either within, or outside of, the TCH medical system. The authors would also like to thank the following diagnostic laboratories for their superb genetic/genomic testing: Baylor Genetics, GeneDx, and PreventionGenetics.

Author Contributions

M.R. Bekheirnia was responsible for funding acquisition and validation; M.R. Bekheirnia and N. Bekheirnia were responsible for formal analysis and resources; M.R. Bekheirnia, N. Bekheirnia, and M.C. Braun were responsible for investigation; M.R. Bekheirnia, N. Bekheirnia, M.C. Braun, and K. E. Glinton were responsible for methodology; M.R. Bekheirnia, N. Bekheirnia, M.C. Braun, K.E. Glinton, and D.J. Lamb provided supervision; M.R. Bekheirnia, N. Bekheirnia, W. Chen, K.E. Glinton, J. Manor, and L. Rossetti were responsible for data curation; M.R. Bekheirnia, N. Bekheirnia, and K.E. Glinton conceptualized the study and were responsible for project administration and visualization; and all authors wrote the original draft and reviewed and edited the manuscript.

  • Received April 21, 2020.
  • Accepted October 29, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sadowski CE,
    2. Lovric S,
    3. Ashraf S,
    4. Pabst WL,
    5. Gee HY,
    6. Kohl S,
    7. Engelmann S,
    8. Vega-Warner V,
    9. Fang H,
    10. Halbritter J,
    11. Somers MJ,
    12. Tan W,
    13. Shril S,
    14. Fessi I,
    15. Lifton RP,
    16. Bockenhauer D,
    17. El-Desoky S,
    18. Kari JA,
    19. Zenker M,
    20. Kemper MJ,
    21. Mueller D,
    22. Fathy HM,
    23. Soliman NA,
    24. Hildebrandt F
    ; SRNS Study Group: A single-gene cause in 29.5% of cases of steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 1279–1289, 2015 10.1681/ASN.2014050489
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Halbritter J,
    2. Baum M,
    3. Hynes AM,
    4. Rice SJ,
    5. Thwaites DT,
    6. Gucev ZS,
    7. Fisher B,
    8. Spaneas L,
    9. Porath JD,
    10. Braun DA,
    11. Wassner AJ,
    12. Nelson CP,
    13. Tasic V,
    14. Sayer JA,
    15. Hildebrandt F
    : Fourteen monogenic genes account for 15% of nephrolithiasis/nephrocalcinosis. J Am Soc Nephrol 26: 543–551, 2015 10.1681/ASN.2014040388
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Bullich G,
    2. Domingo-Gallego A,
    3. Vargas I,
    4. Ruiz P,
    5. Lorente-Grandoso L,
    6. Furlano M,
    7. Fraga G,
    8. Madrid Á,
    9. Ariceta G,
    10. Borregán M,
    11. Piñero-Fernández JA,
    12. Rodríguez-Peña L,
    13. Ballesta-Martínez MJ,
    14. Llano-Rivas I,
    15. Meñica MA,
    16. Ballarín J,
    17. Torrents D,
    18. Torra R,
    19. Ars E
    : A kidney-disease gene panel allows a comprehensive genetic diagnosis of cystic and glomerular inherited kidney diseases. Kidney Int 94: 363–371, 2018 10.1016/j.kint.2018.02.027
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Muzny DM,
    3. Xia F,
    4. Niu Z,
    5. Person R,
    6. Ding Y,
    7. Ward P,
    8. Braxton A,
    9. Wang M,
    10. Buhay C,
    11. Veeraraghavan N,
    12. Hawes A,
    13. Chiang T,
    14. Leduc M,
    15. Beuten J,
    16. Zhang J,
    17. He W,
    18. Scull J,
    19. Willis A,
    20. Landsverk M,
    21. Craigen WJ,
    22. Bekheirnia MR,
    23. Stray-Pedersen A,
    24. Liu P,
    25. Wen S,
    26. Alcaraz W,
    27. Cui H,
    28. Walkiewicz M,
    29. Reid J,
    30. Bainbridge M,
    31. Patel A,
    32. Boerwinkle E,
    33. Beaudet AL,
    34. Lupski JR,
    35. Plon SE,
    36. Gibbs RA,
    37. Eng CM
    : Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA 312: 1870–1879, 201410.1001/jama.2014.14601
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Posey JE,
    2. Rosenfeld JA,
    3. James RA,
    4. Bainbridge M,
    5. Niu Z,
    6. Wang X,
    7. Dhar S,
    8. Wiszniewski W,
    9. Akdemir ZH,
    10. Gambin T,
    11. Xia F,
    12. Person RE,
    13. Walkiewicz M,
    14. Shaw CA,
    15. Sutton VR,
    16. Beaudet AL,
    17. Muzny D,
    18. Eng CM,
    19. Yang Y,
    20. Gibbs RA,
    21. Lupski JR,
    22. Boerwinkle E,
    23. Plon SE
    : Molecular diagnostic experience of whole-exome sequencing in adult patients. Genet Med 18: 678–685, 2016 10.1038/gim.2015.142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Jayasinghe K,
    2. Stark Z,
    3. Patel C,
    4. Mallawaarachchi A,
    5. McCarthy H,
    6. Faull R,
    7. Chakera A,
    8. Sundaram M,
    9. Jose M,
    10. Kerr P,
    11. Wu Y,
    12. Wardrop L,
    13. Goranitis I,
    14. Best S,
    15. Martyn M,
    16. Quinlan C,
    17. Mallett AJ
    : Comprehensive evaluation of a prospective Australian patient cohort with suspected genetic kidney disease undergoing clinical genomic testing: A study protocol. BMJ Open 9: e029541, 2019 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029541
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Rao J,
    2. Liu X,
    3. Mao J,
    4. Tang X,
    5. Shen Q,
    6. Li G,
    7. Sun L,
    8. Bi Y,
    9. Wang X,
    10. Qian Y,
    11. Wu B,
    12. Wang H,
    13. Zhou W,
    14. Ma D,
    15. Zheng B,
    16. Shen Y,
    17. Chen Z,
    18. Luan J,
    19. Wang X,
    20. Wang M,
    21. Dang X,
    22. Wang Y,
    23. Wu Y,
    24. Hou L,
    25. Sun S,
    26. Li Q,
    27. Liu X,
    28. Bai H,
    29. Yang Y,
    30. Shao X,
    31. Li Y,
    32. Zheng S,
    33. Han M,
    34. Liu C,
    35. Cao G,
    36. Zhao L,
    37. Qiu S,
    38. Dong Y,
    39. Zhu Y,
    40. Wang F,
    41. Zhang D,
    42. Li Y,
    43. Zhao L,
    44. Yang C,
    45. Luo X,
    46. Chen L,
    47. Jiang X,
    48. Zhang A,
    49. Xu H
    ; for “Internet Plus” Nephrology Alliance of National Center for Children’s Care: Genetic spectrum of renal disease for 1001 Chinese children based on a multicenter registration system. Clin Genet 96: 402–410, 2019 10.1111/cge.13606
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kirsztajn GM,
    2. Filho NS,
    3. Draibe SA,
    4. de Pádua Netto MV,
    5. Thomé FS,
    6. Souza E,
    7. Bastos MG
    : Fast reading of the KDIGO 2012: guidelines for evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease in clinical practice. J Bras Nefrol 36: 63–73, 2014 10.5935/0101-2800.20140012
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Warejko JK,
    2. Tan W,
    3. Daga A,
    4. Schapiro D,
    5. Lawson JA,
    6. Shril S,
    7. Lovric S,
    8. Ashraf S,
    9. Rao J,
    10. Hermle T,
    11. Jobst-Schwan T,
    12. Widmeier E,
    13. Majmundar AJ,
    14. Schneider R,
    15. Gee HY,
    16. Schmidt JM,
    17. Vivante A,
    18. van der Ven AT,
    19. Ityel H,
    20. Chen J,
    21. Sadowski CE,
    22. Kohl S,
    23. Pabst WL,
    24. Nakayama M,
    25. Somers MJG,
    26. Rodig NM,
    27. Daouk G,
    28. Baum M,
    29. Stein DR,
    30. Ferguson MA,
    31. Traum AZ,
    32. Soliman NA,
    33. Kari JA,
    34. El Desoky S,
    35. Fathy H,
    36. Zenker M,
    37. Bakkaloglu SA,
    38. Müller D,
    39. Noyan A,
    40. Ozaltin F,
    41. Cadnapaphornchai MA,
    42. Hashmi S,
    43. Hopcian J,
    44. Kopp JB,
    45. Benador N,
    46. Bockenhauer D,
    47. Bogdanovic R,
    48. Stajić N,
    49. Chernin G,
    50. Ettenger R,
    51. Fehrenbach H,
    52. Kemper M,
    53. Munarriz RL,
    54. Podracka L,
    55. Büscher R,
    56. Serdaroglu E,
    57. Tasic V,
    58. Mane S,
    59. Lifton RP,
    60. Braun DA,
    61. Hildebrandt F
    : Whole exome sequencing of patients with steroid- resistant nephrotic syndrome. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 13: 53–62, 2018 10.2215/CJN.04120417
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Richards S,
    2. Aziz N,
    3. Bale S,
    4. Bick D,
    5. Das S,
    6. Gastier-Foster J,
    7. Grody WW,
    8. Hegde M,
    9. Lyon E,
    10. Spector E,
    11. Voelkerding K,
    12. Rehm HL
    ; ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee: Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: A joint consensus recommendation of the American college of medical genetics and genomics and the association for molecular pathology. Genet Med 17: 405–424, 2015 10.1038/gim.2015.30
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Hwang YH,
    2. Conklin J,
    3. Chan W,
    4. Roslin NM,
    5. Liu J,
    6. He N,
    7. Wang K,
    8. Sundsbak JL,
    9. Heyer CM,
    10. Haider M,
    11. Paterson AD,
    12. Harris PC,
    13. Pei Y
    : Refining genotype-phenotype correlation in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 27: 1861–1868, 2016 10.1681/ASN.2015060648
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Rossetti Sandro,
    2. Consugar Mark B,
    3. Chapman Arlene B,
    4. Torres Vicente E,
    5. Guay-Woodford Lisa M,
    6. Grantham Jared J,
    7. Bennett William M,
    8. Meyers Catherine M,
    9. Walker Denise L,
    10. Bae Kyongtae,
    11. Zhang Qin Jean,
    12. Thompson Paul A,
    13. Miller J Philip,
    14. Harris Peter C; CRISP Consortium
    : Comprehensive molecular diagnostics in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 18[7]: 2143–2160, 2007 doi:10.1681/ASN.2006121387 pmid:17582161
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kinoshita Moritoshi,
    2. Higashihara Eiji,
    3. Kawano Haruna,
    4. Higashiyama Ryo,
    5. Koga Daisuke,
    6. Fukui Takafumi,
    7. Gondo Nobuhisa,
    8. Oka Takehiko,
    9. Kawahara Kozo,
    10. Rigo Krisztina,
    11. Hague Tim,
    12. Katsuragi Kiyonori,
    13. Sudo Kimiyoshi,
    14. Takeshi Masahiko,
    15. Horie Shigeo,
    16. Nutahara Kikuo
    : Technical Evaluation: Identification of Pathogenic Mutations in PKD1 and PKD2 in Patients with Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease by Next-Generation Sequencing and Use of a Comprehensive New Classification System. PLoS One 11[11]: e0166288, 2016 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166288 pmid:27835667
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Mallett A,
    2. Corney C,
    3. McCarthy H,
    4. Alexander SI,
    5. Healy H
    : Genomics in the renal clinic - translating nephrogenetics for clinical practice. Hum Genomics 9: 13, 2015 10.1186/s40246-015-0035-1
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Mallett AJ,
    2. McCarthy HJ,
    3. Ho G,
    4. Holman K,
    5. Farnsworth E,
    6. Patel C,
    7. Fletcher JT,
    8. Mallawaarachchi A,
    9. Quinlan C,
    10. Bennetts B,
    11. Alexander SI
    : Massively parallel sequencing and targeted exomes in familial kidney disease can diagnose underlying genetic disorders. Kidney Int 92: 1493–1506, 2017 10.1016/j.kint.2017.06.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Alkanderi S,
    2. Yates LM,
    3. Johnson SA,
    4. Sayer JA
    : Lessons learned from a multidisciplinary renal genetics clinic. QJM 110: 453–457, 2017 10.1093/qjmed/hcx030
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Thomas CP,
    2. Freese ME,
    3. Ounda A,
    4. Jetton JG,
    5. Holida M,
    6. Noureddine L,
    7. Smith RJ
    : Initial experience from a renal genetics clinic demonstrates a distinct role in patient management [published correction appears in Genet Med, 2020 10.1038/s41436-020-01000-0]. Genet Med 22: 1025–1035, 2020 10.1038/s41436-020-0772-y
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Groopman EE,
    2. Marasa M,
    3. Cameron-Christie S,
    4. Petrovski S,
    5. Aggarwal VS,
    6. Milo-Rasouly H,
    7. Li Y,
    8. Zhang J,
    9. Nestor J,
    10. Krithivasan P,
    11. Lam WY,
    12. Mitrotti A,
    13. Piva S,
    14. Kil BH,
    15. Chatterjee D,
    16. Reingold R,
    17. Bradbury D,
    18. DiVecchia M,
    19. Snyder H,
    20. Mu X,
    21. Mehl K,
    22. Balderes O,
    23. Fasel DA,
    24. Weng C,
    25. Radhakrishnan J,
    26. Canetta P,
    27. Appel GB,
    28. Bomback AS,
    29. Ahn W,
    30. Uy NS,
    31. Alam S,
    32. Cohen DJ,
    33. Crew RJ,
    34. Dube GK,
    35. Rao MK,
    36. Kamalakaran S,
    37. Copeland B,
    38. Ren Z,
    39. Bridgers J,
    40. Malone CD,
    41. Mebane CM,
    42. Dagaonkar N,
    43. Fellström BC,
    44. Haefliger C,
    45. Mohan S,
    46. Sanna-Cherchi S,
    47. Kiryluk K,
    48. Fleckner J,
    49. March R,
    50. Platt A,
    51. Goldstein DB,
    52. Gharavi AG
    : Diagnostic Utility of exome sequencing for kidney disease. N Engl J Med 380: 142–151, 2019 10.1056/NEJMoa1806891
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. van der Ven AT,
    2. Connaughton DM,
    3. Ityel H,
    4. Mann N,
    5. Nakayama M,
    6. Chen J,
    7. Vivante A,
    8. Hwang DY,
    9. Schulz J,
    10. Braun DA,
    11. Schmidt JM,
    12. Schapiro D,
    13. Schneider R,
    14. Warejko JK,
    15. Daga A,
    16. Majmundar AJ,
    17. Tan W,
    18. Jobst-Schwan T,
    19. Hermle T,
    20. Widmeier E,
    21. Ashraf S,
    22. Amar A,
    23. Hoogstraaten CA,
    24. Hugo H,
    25. Kitzler TM,
    26. Kause F,
    27. Kolvenbach CM,
    28. Dai R,
    29. Spaneas L,
    30. Amann K,
    31. Stein DR,
    32. Baum MA,
    33. Somers MJG,
    34. Rodig NM,
    35. Ferguson MA,
    36. Traum AZ,
    37. Daouk GH,
    38. Bogdanović R,
    39. Stajić N,
    40. Soliman NA,
    41. Kari JA,
    42. El Desoky S,
    43. Fathy HM,
    44. Milosevic D,
    45. Al-Saffar M,
    46. Awad HS,
    47. Eid LA,
    48. Selvin A,
    49. Senguttuvan P,
    50. Sanna-Cherchi S,
    51. Rehm HL,
    52. MacArthur DG,
    53. Lek M,
    54. Laricchia KM,
    55. Wilson MW,
    56. Mane SM,
    57. Lifton RP,
    58. Lee RS,
    59. Bauer SB,
    60. Lu W,
    61. Reutter HM,
    62. Tasic V,
    63. Shril S,
    64. Hildebrandt F
    : Whole-exome sequencing identifies causative mutations in families with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract. J Am Soc Nephrol 29: 2348–2361, 2018 10.1681/ASN.2017121265
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Torres VE,
    2. Chapman AB,
    3. Devuyst O,
    4. Gansevoort RT,
    5. Grantham JJ,
    6. Higashihara E,
    7. Perrone RD,
    8. Krasa HB,
    9. Ouyang J,
    10. Czerwiec FS
    ; TEMPO 3:4 Trial Investigators: Tolvaptan in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 367: 2407–2418, 2012 10.1056/NEJMoa1205511
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Torres VE,
    2. Chapman AB,
    3. Devuyst O,
    4. Gansevoort RT,
    5. Perrone RD,
    6. Koch G,
    7. Ouyang J,
    8. McQuade RD,
    9. Blais JD,
    10. Czerwiec FS,
    11. Sergeyeva O
    ; REPRISE Trial Investigators: Tolvaptan in later-stage autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. N Engl J Med 377: 1930–1942, 2017 10.1056/NEJMoa1710030
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Malone AF,
    2. Phelan PJ,
    3. Hall G,
    4. Cetincelik U,
    5. Homstad A,
    6. Alonso AS,
    7. Jiang R,
    8. Lindsey TB,
    9. Wu G,
    10. Sparks MA,
    11. Smith SR,
    12. Webb NJ,
    13. Kalra PA,
    14. Adeyemo AA,
    15. Shaw AS,
    16. Conlon PJ,
    17. Jennette JC,
    18. Howell DN,
    19. Winn MP,
    20. Gbadegesin RA
    : Rare hereditary COL4A3/COL4A4 variants may be mistaken for familial focal segmental glomerulosclerosis. Kidney Int 86: 1253–1259, 2014 10.1038/ki.2014.305
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Jayasinghe K,
    2. Stark Z,
    3. Kerr PG,
    4. Gaff C,
    5. Martyn M,
    6. Whitlam J,
    7. Creighton B,
    8. Donaldson E,
    9. Hunter M,
    10. Jarmolowicz A,
    11. Johnstone L,
    12. Krzesinski E,
    13. Lunke S,
    14. Lynch E,
    15. Nicholls K,
    16. Patel C,
    17. Prawer Y,
    18. Ryan J,
    19. See EJ,
    20. Talbot A,
    21. Trainer A,
    22. Tytherleigh R,
    23. Valente G,
    24. Wallis M,
    25. Wardrop L,
    26. West KH,
    27. White SM,
    28. Wilkins E,
    29. Mallett AJ,
    30. Quinlan C
    : Clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with suspected monogenic kidney disease [published online ahead of print September 17, 2020]. Genet Med 10.1038/s41436-020-00963-4
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Kidney360: 2 (1)
Kidney360
Vol. 2, Issue 1
28 Jan 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Society of Nephrology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinical Utility of Genetic Testing in the Precision Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Patients with Kidney and Urinary Tract Diseases
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Clinical Utility of Genetic Testing in the Precision Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Patients with Kidney and Urinary Tract Diseases
Nasim Bekheirnia, Kevin E. Glinton, Linda Rossetti, Joshua Manor, Wuyan Chen, Dolores J. Lamb, Michael C. Braun, Mir Reza Bekheirnia
Kidney360 Jan 2021, 2 (1) 90-104; DOI: 10.34067/KID.0002272020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Clinical Utility of Genetic Testing in the Precision Diagnosis and Management of Pediatric Patients with Kidney and Urinary Tract Diseases
Nasim Bekheirnia, Kevin E. Glinton, Linda Rossetti, Joshua Manor, Wuyan Chen, Dolores J. Lamb, Michael C. Braun, Mir Reza Bekheirnia
Kidney360 Jan 2021, 2 (1) 90-104; DOI: 10.34067/KID.0002272020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Effect on Precision Diagnosis and Management
    • Discussion
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Supplemental Material
    • Acknowledgments
    • Author Contributions
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

Original Investigations

  • Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Polycystic Kidney Disease
  • Identification of Novel Biomarkers and Pathways for Coronary Artery Calcification in Nondiabetic Patients on Hemodialysis Using Metabolomic Profiling
  • Multidisciplinary Team versus a “Phosphate-Counting” App for Serum Phosphate Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Show more Original Investigations

Genetics

  • Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Kidney Transplant Recipients with Polycystic Kidney Disease
  • Identification of Novel Biomarkers and Pathways for Coronary Artery Calcification in Nondiabetic Patients on Hemodialysis Using Metabolomic Profiling
  • Multidisciplinary Team versus a “Phosphate-Counting” App for Serum Phosphate Control: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Show more Genetics

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • genetics
  • data collection
  • genetic testing
  • kidney disease
  • Renal Genetics Clinic
  • urologic diseases

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • Kidney360
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About Kidney360
  • Kidney360 Email Alerts
  • Kidney360 Podcasts
  • Kidney360 RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Disqus Code of Conduct
  • Disqus Information
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Subscribe to JASN and CJASN

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Online ISSN - 2641-7650

Powered by HighWire