This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Originally, locus symbols (e.g., DYT1) were introduced to specify chromosomal regions that had been linked to a familial disorder with a yet unknown gene. Symbols were systematically assigned in a numerical series to designate mapped loci for a specific phenotype or group of phenotypes. Since the system of designating and using locus symbols was originally established, both our knowledge and our techniques of gene discovery have evolved substantially. The current system has problems that are sources of confusion, perpetuate misinformation, and misrepresent the system as a useful reference tool for a list of inherited disorders of a particular phenotypic class. These include erroneously assigned loci, duplicated loci, missing symbols, missing loci, unconfirmed loci in a consecutively numbered system, combining causative genes and risk factor genes in the same list, and discordance between phenotype and list assignment. In this article, we describe these problems and their impact, and propose solutions. The system could be significantly improved by creating distinct lists for clinical and research purposes, creating more informative locus symbols, distinguishing disease-causing mutations from risk factors, raising the threshold of evidence prior to assigning a locus symbol, paying strict attention to the predominant phenotype when assigning symbols lists, and having a formal system for reviewing and continually revising the list that includes input from both clinical and genetics experts.
GLOSSARY
- HGNC=
- Human Genome Organisation Gene Nomenclature Committee;
- PD=
- Parkinson disease
Footnotes
Study funding: Dr. Connie Marras is supported by a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Klein is a recipient of a career development award from the Volkswagen Foundation and from the Hermann and Lilly Schilling Foundation.
- Received June 29, 2011.
- Accepted November 4, 2011.
- Copyright © 2012 by AAN Enterprises, Inc.
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
If you are uploading a letter concerning an article:
You must have updated your disclosures within six months: http://submit.neurology.org
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.