Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Jul 8.
Published in final edited form as: Genet Med. 2010 Aug;12(8):512–516. doi: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e5afb8

Frequency of Usher Syndrome in Two Pediatric Populations: Implications for genetic screening of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children

William J Kimberling 1,3, Michael S Hildebrand 2, A Eliot Shearer 2, Maren L Jensen 1, Jennifer A Halder 3, Edward S Cohn 1, Richard G Weleber 4, Edwin M Stone 3, Richard J H Smith 2
PMCID: PMC3131500  NIHMSID: NIHMS303328  PMID: 20613545

Abstract

Purpose

Usher syndrome is a major cause of genetic deafblindness. The hearing loss is usually congenital and the retinitis pigmentosa is progressive and first noticed in early childhood to the middle teenage years. Its frequency may be underestimated. Newly developed molecular technologies can detect the underlying gene mutation of this disorder early in life providing estimation of its prevalence in at risk pediatric populations and laying a foundation for its incorporation as an adjunct to newborn hearing screening programs.

Methods

A total of 133 children from two deaf and hard of hearing pediatric populations were genotyped first for GJB2/6 and, if negative, then for Usher syndrome. Children were scored as positive if the test revealed ≥1 pathogenic mutations in any Usher gene.

Results

Fifteen children carried pathogenic mutations in one of the Usher genes; the number of deaf and hard of hearing children carrying Usher syndrome mutations was 15/133 (11.3%). The population prevalence was estimated to be 1/6000.

Conclusion

Usher syndrome is more prevalent than has been reported prior to the genome project era. Early diagnosis of Usher syndrome has important positive implications for childhood safety, educational planning, genetic counseling, and treatment. The results demonstrate that DNA testing for Usher syndrome is feasible and may be a useful addition to newborn hearing screening programs.

Keywords: Usher syndrome, DNA screening, prevalence, retinitis pigmentosa, hearing loss, pediatrics, newborn hearing screening

INTRODUCTION

Usher syndrome refers to a group of recessive disorders characterized by hearing loss (HL), retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and vestibular dysfunction. The three clinical classes are: type 1 with congenital deafness and vestibular areflexia; type 2 with a congenital, moderate HL and no vestibular areflexia; and type 3 with a progressive hearing and vestibular loss. All have retinitis pigmentosa with variable ages of diagnosis. Nine causative genes have so far been identified: MYO7A, USH1C, CDH23, PCDH15 and SANS (Usher type 1); USH2A, GPR98 and WHRN (Usher type 2); USH3A (Usher type 3). Mutations in these genes show clinical variability that can range from nonsyndromic HL1–3 to isolated RP4. The frequency has been reported to be ~1/25,000 in the USA and Scandinavia 5–7. Studies of Schools for the Deaf have reached a consensus that ~5% of such students have Usher syndrome 5;8–10. However, all the earlier studies sampled mostly severe and profoundly deaf children and would have overlooked those with milder hearing losses. Early surveys also were based on a clinical phenotype that can be difficult to diagnose in childhood. It has been generally accepted that deaf and hard of hearing (D/HOH) children had a high risk for RP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects

High school students (ages 14 to 20 years) in special education classes for D/HOH children throughout Oregon were given kits that contained a questionnaire, consent forms, information on Usher syndrome, and a saliva collection kit. Nineteen schools were involved, including the Oregon school for the Deaf, from which 14 students were participants. Willing families provided written informed consent as well as assent. Samples, questionnaires, and signed consent forms were mailed to the Boys Town Hospital Gene Marker laboratory in Omaha, Nebraska where the DNA was extracted. Students were encouraged to participate regardless of severity of loss, age at onset, laterality, or type of loss. Two hundred kits were distributed by the school teachers and nurses to children who took the kits to their families. Eighty-one were returned but 3 were discarded, 2 because the sample was insufficient and 1 because a valid consent could not be obtained. Of the 78 individuals remaining, 37 reported a severe to profound HL, 18 reported a moderate to severe HL, 3 reported a mild HL, 1 reported a unilateral HL and 19 did not specify the degree of hearing loss. There were 41 males and 37 females. When compared with the Gallaudet report 11, this sample has an over representation of more severe losses. One-hundred-fifteen children receiving cochlear implants (CI) at the University of Iowa Implant Program were also involved. These children were all previously tested for GJB2/6 mutations 12. Forty-one (35.7%) were positive for GJB2/6 mutations. Of the remaining 74 individuals, DNA was available for 55. Human research institutional review boards at Boys Town National Research Hospital and the University of Iowa approved all procedures.

All families and subjects received a written report of their findings. Families with children positive for the Usher screen were contacted by telephone and requested to come to the Casey Eye clinic for counseling and eye examination. Genetic counseling was available for all participants upon request.

DNA Extraction

The ORAGENE saliva sample collection kit (DNA Genotek, Inc., Ontario, Canada) was used to collect DNA in the Oregon study. DNA was extracted according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the CI children, ten milliliters of whole blood were obtained by venipuncture and DNA was extracted using a Gentra PureGene DNA Extraction Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

PCR and Sequencing

GJB2 sequencing of exon 2 plus adjacent noncoding DNA including 5′ and 3′ splice sites was done on all subjects. Sequencing of the specific Usher exons was done to validate all pathogenic variants observed by microarray analysis. Gene specific sequencing was used to search for the second mutation in children where only one mutation had been detected by microarray analysis. Coding regions and splice sites of the GJB2, CDH23, MYO7A, USH1C and USH2A genes were amplified using gene-specific primers. Deletions affecting GJB6 were screened as described previously 12. All amplification reactions were cycled using a standard protocol on a GeneMate Genius thermocycler (ISC BioExpress, UT, USA). Sequencing was completed with a BigDye™ v3.1 Terminator Cycle Sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sequencing products were read using an ABI 3730 sequencer (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA). All sequencing chromatograms were compared to published cDNA sequence.

Microarray Analysis

DNA samples negative for GJB2/6 mutations were subject to Usher syndrome testing (http://www.asperophthalmics.com) using Usher Chip v4.0 platform13. All pathologic mutations were confirmed by standard Sanger sequencing. WHRN was the only Usher gene not represented on this version of the ASPER chip.

RESULTS

Six of 78 (7.7%) D/HOH children from Oregon were found to harbor mutations in the GJB2/6 gene. This is lower than that reported in the CI cohort reflecting the fact that the Oregon cohort had a wider range of HL severity. This was a surprising finding because we had felt that the presence of a pathologic genotype for GJB2/6 would significantly lower the likelihood of Usher syndrome in a high percentage of D/HOH children allowing us to avoid the cost of the Usher testing for them that at the time was more expensive.

Children negative for GJB2/6 hearing loss (72 D/HOH and 55 CI) were then screened for known Usher mutations using the ASPER chip.13 The number of children carrying ≥1 Usher mutation among the D/HOH and CI children, negative for GJB2/6, was 8/72 (11.1%) and 7/55 (12.7%), respectively (see Table 1). After the DNA testing was completed, it was revealed that only one Oregon student had been previously diagnosed with Usher syndrome. Frequency data from the two populations were not found to vary significantly from each other with regard to the frequency of Usher syndrome and were pooled with the combined frequencies being considered to extrapolate a frequency of Usher genotypes in the general population.

Table 1.

Results of DNA screening of two pediatric populations arranged according to the Usher gene involved.

Population studied Group 1 High School D/HOH Children Group 2 Children receiving cochlear implants
Age 16 to 19 years < 5 years
N 78 55 (115)1
USH1B 2 2
USH1D 3 3
USH1C 0 1
USH2A 3 1
Total 8 7
Post GJB2/2 Screening 11.1% 12.7%
Pre GJB2/6 screening 10.2% 8.2%2
Open in a new tab
1

Number in parentheses is total number of CI children in the series of which 19 could not be tested for Usher because of insufficient DNA.

2

Value corrected for the loss of the 19 cases due to insufficient DNA by 0.08.2 = (7 + .127 * 19)/115

Mutations observed

Mutations observed in this study and the genotypes of the cases detected are presented in table 2. USH1D was observed to be the most frequent gene involved (6/15, 40%). Interestingly, one USH2A mutation (c.4338delCT) was detected in the CI cohort. Two children in the CI cohort were observed to be homozygous for USH1B: c. 448C>T, p.R150X but, since they were sibs, only one was counted in the prevalence estimate.

Table 2.

Mutations found in D/HOH and CI populations.

Patient Usher locus Gene Mutation Amino acid change Exon
Oregon Student High School D/HOH Population 1 USH1B MYO7A c.5227C>T p.R1743W 38
2 USH1B MYO7A c.4018G>A p. A1340T 31
3 USH1C USH1C c.238insC p.R80fs 3
4 USH1D CDH23 c.1096G>A p.A366T 10
5 USH1D CDH23 c.3178C>T p.R1060W 26
6 USH1D CDH23 c.6065-9G>A; c.3256C>T splice site; p.R1086X 46; 27
7 USH2A USH2A c.3558delT p.C1186fs 17
8 USH2A USH2A c.2299delG p.E767fs 13
Cochlear Implant Population 9 USH1B MYO7A c.4918delG; c.1189G>A p.G1640fs; p.A397T 36; 10
10 USH1B MYO7A c.448C>T p.R150X1 5
11 USH1C USH1C c.216G>A V72fs136X 3
12 USH1D CDH23 c.1096G>A p. A366T 10
13 USH1D CDH23 c.3640A>G; c.5433C>G p.T1214A; p.D1811E 30; 41
14 USH1D CDH23 c.5237G>A; c.9504G>A p.R1746Q; p.W3168X 40; 67
15 USH2A USH2A c.4338delCT p.C1447fs 20
Open in a new tab
1

Homozygous; all others are heterozygous or compound heterozygotes.

Frequency estimation

The frequency estimate needs to be adjusted for false negatives due to an imperfect test sensitivity and reduced specificity due to normal carriers. The sensitivity of the ASPER microarray was estimated by us in a separate sample of 77 USA individuals, each with a clinically established Usher phenotype and who had never been tested for Usher mutations prior to their ASPER testing. Of these, 30 were found to have ≥1 mutation in an Usher gene, giving a sensitivity of 30/77 = 0.39. The sensitivity of the ASPER chip has been observed to be between 35% and 55% in other studies 13 (also L. Tranebjaerg, personal communication). To be conservative and thereby not overestimate the prevalence, our calculations assume a sensitivity of 0.5. The combined carrier rate of all Usher genetic types combined is assumed to be no greater than 5% (14, and data not shown).

The adjusted prevalence of Usher syndrome in the D/HOH population can be calculated using the formula y = (1-c)*x/s where x is the observed frequency, s is the sensitivity, and c is the carrier rate. The frequency for the combined groups, weighted by sample size, was calculated to be 9.2%. Thus, the frequency within the D/HOH childhood population is estimated at (1.0–0.05) * 0.092 / 0.5 = 0.175 (standard error ~ 0.029; and the 95%tile lower limit is 0.117). Since a conservative estimate of the frequency of childhood deafness is ~1/1000 15–17, one can extrapolate that the frequency of Usher syndrome in the general American population is 0.001 * 0.175, rounded up to ~1/6000.

DISCUSSION

Prevalence

The estimate of the prevalence of Usher syndrome presented here is supported by other evidence. The frequency of detection observed here compares favorably with the results of two other studies of CI children where 7.0% and 10.4% were found to have RP by electroretinogram 18;19. Also, it is remarkable that, though of limited size, two different populations, one of children in a school system in Oregon with a wide range of hearing loss severity and the other of children receiving cochlear implants in Iowa all of whom have a severe to profound HL, showed similar frequencies for the genetic types of Usher syndrome.

One must consider the possibility of selection bias, especially for the Oregon group, since parents chose to participate, a decision that may have been predicated on a perception of symptoms noted by the parents. There is less likelihood of such a self selection bias with the CI cohort.

The prevalence we have observed is nearly five times greater than what has been estimated from prior surveys. It rivals the frequencies seen for many other better known orphan diseases such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy(1/4,608)20, Huntington’s disease (~1/15,000)21, and Lou Gehrig’s disease(1/40,000) 22.

Where are the extra Usher syndrome cases predicted by this study? Part of the answer is in the fact that not all persons with two pathogenic mutations develop RP, at least not as youngsters. There are reports of persons with mutations in MYO7A, CDH23, PCDH15, and USH1C who have been observed to have non-syndromic HL 1–3;23;24. CDH23 is perhaps the largest category with about 1/3 reported as having nonsyndromic HL; however, many of these patients appeared to have mild retinal manifestations raising the question about a later onset type of RP 1. Another possible explanation for why Usher syndrome is underrepresented might be that people with Usher syndrome are not coming to the attention of physicians. Deaf, and especially deaf-blind, individuals face severe communication difficulties when visiting a doctor and might avoid doing so. Also, there is the possibility of under-diagnosis because of a lack of awareness by professionals of the high risk of Usher syndrome to D/HOH persons. The costs of genetic evaluations and of the sophisticated ophthalmologic examinations may deter some families from seeking a diagnosis. Lastly, some Usher types may be associated with undiscovered morbidity that shortens lifespan.

These considerations point to a likelihood that the deaf-blind population is underserved in the USA. If the diagnoses are not being recorded, it implies that they are missed and that the patients are therefore not receiving the medical and social support they need. Other larger and better controlled genetic epidemiologic studies are needed to validate our results and, if confirmed, to search for answers regarding why the prevalence is much greater than previously believed.

The Impact of New Molecular Technology

The molecular technology used to survey the D/HOH children in this study is at an early stage in its translation into the clinical realm but should be discussed in terms of the eventual implementation of this and similar technologies into newborn screening programs. ASPER (http://www.asperophthalmics.com) uses one type of platform that is widely used to test for Usher syndrome and has been applied to other genetic disorders as well 25. There are now competing technologies offered by SNPlex (https://products.appliedbiosystems.com) and Fluidigm (http://fluidigm.com/products) that have similar properties to ASPER. The cost is about the same for all, ranging from $150 to $500 per test. All function basically the same in that they detect known mutations but not novel DNA variants. For any particular gene, the maximum sensitivity of all the known-mutation based platforms should be about the same, 50 to 70%. Regardless of platform, the cost is attractively low and one can envision screening programs of high risk populations at a reasonable cost and with a reasonable pickup rate. It is anticipated that DNA based diagnostics will gradually become an integral part of early childhood screening programs including those for newborn hearing loss 26. Indeed, molecular diagnostics are being integrated into newborn screening for cystic fibrosis (CF) in much the same manner that it is proposed that it be used for childhood hearing loss 27–29.

DNA testing as an adjunct to newborn hearing screening

The sensitivity of any mutation-based screening test depends upon the number of mutations being tested: the more mutations, the higher the sensitivity, but at a certain level the addition of a new rare mutation adds little to sensitivity. Since each mutation adds some to the cost of a screening test, the balance of cost vs. benefit needs to be considered as new mutations are added. Sensitivity can be greatly increased if the Usher genes can be sequenced using a probability-driven sequencing, resequencing, or one of the Next Generation Sequencing approaches 30–32. At the present time, these are fairly expensive and it is not practical to employ them on a screening basis.

False positives are an issue with DNA testing of single gene recessive disorders. As a screening test, it detects children at a very high risk for developing RP but follow up is needed to confirm positive findings. First, if only one mutation is found, the second mutation must be sought to confirm the molecular diagnosis since there is a possibility that the child is just a carrier. The likelihood of an Usher carrier in the general population is about 5% and this can be taken as an approximate estimate of the false positive rate for the Usher screening test. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that any additional false positives would occur because of technical error since all results are confirmed by Sanger sequencing and many will have the family studied to confirm segregation. The possibility that the child may have a clinical variant that produces just a hearing loss must be considered. In this sense, Usher screening is similar to other newborn screening in that it detects children at high risk for a serious symptom but follow up confirmation is required. Consequently, the child must be examined by the ophthalmologist for retinitis pigmentosa. If the eye exam is negative, then yearly ophthalmologic follow up would be advised. One should also be sure that the child is fully integrated into a pediatric otolaryngology service and that the family is aware of the availability of cochlear implantation. Genetic counseling is strongly recommended to aid in avoiding misinterpretation of the genetic findings.

In the context of most newborn hearing screening programs, the appropriate time for DNA screening is at the time of follow-up verification of the hearing loss, which occurs between 3 and 12 months of age. At that time a sample of blood from a heel stick can be taken and tested for genetic causes of hearing loss. We propose a tiered approach as an adjunct to newborn hearing screening programs where DNA screening would be used to identify upwards of 50% of the cases (that would include GJB2/6 and Usher gene mutations) with a simple and inexpensive DNA test. Those that are negative could go on to the more expensive 2nd tier sequencing strategies, if funds are available. The first tier of this approach is diagrammed in figure 1. As other genes are incorporated, the overall sensitivity will increase. A second tier would involve using probability-driven sequencing or Next Generation Sequencing technologies (as those become available and affordable) which could potentially bring the sensitivity up to close to 100% for all genetic types of childhood hearing loss.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Proposed paradigm for screening D/HOH children for Usher syndrome. The patient is first tested GJB2/6. If no GJB2/6 mutation is observed, testing continues for the most commonly occurring Usher mutations. Any positive test refers to the presence of ≥ 1 pathogenic mutations which, when only 1 pathogenic allele is observed, should be confirmed by a search for the second allele. The ‘Future Tests’ box refers to the probable incorporation of tests for other genetic types of hearing loss such as for the genes SLC26A4, OTOF, etc. The ‘confirm by sequencing’ step includes a search for a second mutation, if needed.

Benefit of early detection of Usher syndrome

For Usher syndrome, early diagnosis has many immediate and several long-term advantages to patients and their families. First, the election of cochlear implantation may be conditioned upon the diagnosis of risk for future vision loss since combined sensory deficits are especially difficult for the patient and the maintenance of hearing would be of great benefit if vision were lost. Not all profoundly deaf children under the age of 12 months receive cochlear implants in the USA33;34. An Usher diagnosis would allow limited services to focus on children with potential Usher syndrome to insure that the parents have the opportunity to choose implantation at an early age. The choice of bilateral implants may be influenced by foreknowledge of a developing RP in order to enhance the ability for sound localization. Also, the late motor milestones that are observed in Usher 1 children with vestibular areflexia often leads to extensive tests (in addition to parental anxiety) to evaluate the reasons for the motor delay and an early diagnosis of Usher syndrome provides a reason for such delay. Early habilitation and training programs need to take into account that Usher 1 children will need appropriate lighting. Knowledge that a child has Usher syndrome is so important to educators, that most schools for the deaf have at one time or another screened their student body for Usher syndrome. Genetic counseling is improved once a diagnosis of the etiology of the hearing loss is understood and parents may view a combined sensory deficit as having a different burden and such information may influence their family planning.

The greatest benefit of early identification lies in the potential for future treatment to delay the progression of the RP. Diet and life style may be important determinants of the rate of progression of the retinal disease in Usher as was shown for adult onset macular degeneration35. Animal studies raise possibility of using sunglasses in children suspected of having Usher syndrome to reduce the progression of the RP 36. There are also new advances in the area of neuroprotectives for the eye 37. Gene therapy for the eye has been effective for another retinal dystrophy, Leber’s congenital Amaurosis 38;39 and holds promise for the Usher syndromes 40;41. The principle behind early diagnosis is that early intervention would be the most effective. Many of the therapeutic possibilities, such as changes in the diet or the use of blue and ultraviolet light filtering glasses, are well suited to children and may prove beneficial in slowing the progression of the visual loss. If proven effective, such a simple therapy would give time for more effective gene based therapies to be developed and to be proven safe for children. While the deafblindness that is the result of the progressive RP and occurs in the adult, it is none-the-less a pediatric disorder since, diagnosed early, intervention is predicted to be most effective. If we wish to reduce the burden to individuals, families, and society, then we must focus our attention onto children and early diagnosis becomes paramount.

The purpose of the current study was to determine the prevalence of Usher syndrome among D/HOH children and to demonstrate that DNA screening of D/HOH children is feasible. The results support the hypothesis that Usher syndrome is much more common than previously thought, although the reasons for this are unclear. Early diagnosis of Usher syndrome has important positive implications for childhood safety, educational attainment and genetic counseling. Early diagnosis is now possible through DNA testing at a reasonable cost enabling large scale screening. Despite its importance as a public health issue, little attention has been paid to this disorder. Because it is so highly prevalent in the D/HOH child, we recommend that molecular testing should be part of the diagnostic workup of any D/HOH child as well as an adjunct to newborn hearing screening. The high frequency of Usher syndrome underscores the need for enhanced recognition of this disease as the most common cause of deafblindness in the USA.

Acknowledgments

Supported by grants from the Foundation Fighting Blindness, Hear See Hope Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, NIDCD grant RO1 DCOO2842 and unrestricted Funds from Research to Prevent Blindness. MSH is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Postdoctoral Training Fellowship. AES is supported by a Doris Duke Clinical Research Fellowship.

Footnotes

Competing/Conflicting Interest: None to declare.

Reference List

  • 1.Astuto LM, Bork JM, Weston MD, et al. CDH23 mutation and phenotype heterogeneity: a profile of 107 diverse families with Usher syndrome and nonsyndromic deafness. Am J Hum Genet. 2002;71:262–275. doi: 10.1086/341558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ahmed ZM, Riazuddin S, Aye S, et al. Gene structure and mutant alleles of PCDH15: nonsyndromic deafness DFNB23 and type 1 Usher syndrome. Hum Genet. 2008;124:215–223. doi: 10.1007/s00439-008-0543-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ahmed ZM, Smith TN, Riazuddin S, et al. Nonsyndromic recessive deafness DFNB18 and Usher syndrome type IC are allelic mutations of USHIC. Hum Genet. 2002;110:527–531. doi: 10.1007/s00439-002-0732-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Keats BJ, Savas S. Genetic heterogeneity in Usher syndrome. Am J Med Genet A. 2004;130:13–16. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Boughman JA, Vernon M, Shaver KA. Usher syndrome: definition and estimate of prevalence from two high risk populations. J Chron Dis. 1983;36:595–603. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(83)90147-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sadeghi M, Kimberling WJ, Tranebjaerg L, Moller C. The prevalence of Usher syndrome in Sweden: A Nationwide Epidemiologic and Clinical Survey. Audiological Medicine. 2004;2:220–228. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nuutila A. Dystrophia retinae pigmentosa-dysacusis syndrome (DRD): A study of the Usher or Hallgren syndrome. J Genet Hum. 1970;18:57–58. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fraser GR. Epidemiology of profound childhood deafness. Audiology. 1974;13:335–341. doi: 10.3109/00206097409071691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Day CW. Current screening procedures for the Usher syndrome at residential schools for the deaf. Am Ann Deaf. 1982;127:45–48. doi: 10.1353/aad.2012.1112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Tamayo ML, Tamayo G, Bernal JE, Frias JL, Vergara O, Silva JC. A study of the etiology of deafness in an institutionalized population in Colombia. Am J Med Genet. 1991 doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320440403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gallaudet Research Institute. Regional and National Summary Report of Data from the 2006–2007 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University; 2007. Ref Type: Report. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Snoeckx RL, Huygen PL, Feldmann D, et al. GJB2 mutations and degree of hearing loss: a multicenter study. Am J Hum Genet. 2005;77:945–957. doi: 10.1086/497996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cremers FP, Kimberling WJ, Kulm M, et al. Development of a genotyping microarray for Usher syndrome. J Med Genet. 2007;44:153–160. doi: 10.1136/jmg.2006.044784. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kimberling WJ. Estimation of the frequency of occult mutations for an autosomal recessive disease in the presence of genetic heterogeneity: application to genetic hearing loss disorders. Hum Mutat. 2005;26:462–470. doi: 10.1002/humu.20221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fortnum HM, Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH, Davis AC, Bamford JM. Prevalence of permanent childhood hearing impairment in the United Kingdom and implications for universal neonatal hearing screening: questionnaire based ascertainment study. BMJ. 2001;323:536–540. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7312.536. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Van NK, Decoufle P, Caldwell K. Prevalence and characteristics of children with serious hearing impairment in metropolitan Atlanta, 1991–1993. Pediatrics. 1999;103:570–575. doi: 10.1542/peds.103.3.570. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Maki-Torkko EM, Lindholm PK, Vayrynen MR, Leisti JT, Sorri MJ. Epidemiology of moderate to profound childhood hearing impairments in northern Finland. Any changes in ten years? Scand Audiol. 1998;27:95–103. doi: 10.1080/010503998420333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mets MB, Young NM, Pass A, Lasky JB. Early diagnosis of Usher syndrome in children. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2000;98:237–242. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Loundon N, Marlin S, Busquet D, et al. Usher syndrome and cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol. 2003;24:216–221. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200303000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nigro G, Comi LI, Limongelli FM, et al. Prospective study of X-linked progressive muscular dystrophy in Campania. Muscle Nerve. 1983;6:253–262. doi: 10.1002/mus.880060403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Morrison PJ, Johnston WP, Nevin NC. The epidemiology of Huntington’s disease in Northern Ireland. J Med Genet. 1995;32:524–530. doi: 10.1136/jmg.32.7.524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Incidence of ALS in Italy: evidence for a uniform frequency in Western countries. Neurology. 2001;56:239–244. doi: 10.1212/wnl.56.2.239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Riazuddin S, Nazli S, Ahmed ZM, et al. Mutation spectrum of MYO7A and evaluation of a novel nonsyndromic deafness DFNB2 allele with residual function. Hum Mutat. 2008;29:502–511. doi: 10.1002/humu.20677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Pennings RJ, Topsakal V, Astuto L, et al. Variable clinical features in patients with CDH23 mutations (USH1D-DFNB12) Otol Neurotol. 2004;25:699–706. doi: 10.1097/00129492-200409000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Koenekoop RK, Lopez I, den Hollander AI, Allikmets R, Cremers FP. Genetic testing for retinal dystrophies and dysfunctions: benefits, dilemmas and solutions. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007;35:473–485. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.2007.01534.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Levy HL, Albers S. Genetic screening of newborns. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2000;1:139–177. doi: 10.1146/annurev.genom.1.1.139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Sontag MK, Hammond KB, Zielenski J, Wagener JS, Accurso FJ. Two-tiered immunoreactive trypsinogen-based newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in Colorado: screening efficacy and diagnostic outcomes. J Pediatr. 2005;147:S83–S88. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2005.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lindau-Shepard BA, Pass KA. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis by use of a multiplex immunoassay. Clin Chem. 2010;56:445–450. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2009.132480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wilcken B. Newborn screening for cystic fibrosis: techniques and strategies. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2007;30:537–543. doi: 10.1007/s10545-007-0584-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stone EM. Leber congenital amaurosis - a model for efficient genetic testing of heterogeneous disorders: LXIV Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;144:791–811. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.08.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Voelkerding KV, Dames SA, Durtschi JD. Next-generation sequencing: from basic research to diagnostics. Clin Chem. 2009;55:641–658. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tucker T, Marra M, Friedman JM. Massively parallel sequencing: the next big thing in genetic medicine. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;85:142–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.06.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Bradham T, Jones J. Cochlear implant candidacy in the United States: prevalence in children 12 months to 6 years of age. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72:1023–1028. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2008.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Belzner KA, Seal BC. Children with cochlear implants: a review of demographics and communication outcomes. Am Ann Deaf. 2009;154:311–333. doi: 10.1353/aad.0.0102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chiu CJ, Klein R, Milton RC, Gensler G, Taylor A. Does eating particular diets alter the risk of age-related macular degeneration in users of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study supplements? Br J Ophthalmol. 2009;93:1241–1246. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.143412. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cideciyan AV, Jacobson SG, Aleman TS, et al. In vivo dynamics of retinal injury and repair in the rhodopsin mutant dog model of human retinitis pigmentosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102:5233–5238. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0408892102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sieving PA, Caruso RC, Tao W, et al. Ciliary neurotrophic factor (CNTF) for human retinal degeneration: phase I trial of CNTF delivered by encapsulated cell intraocular implants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103:3896–3901. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0600236103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hauswirth WW, Aleman TS, Kaushal S, et al. Treatment of leber congenital amaurosis due to RPE65 mutations by ocular subretinal injection of adeno-associated virus gene vector: short-term results of a phase I trial. Hum Gene Ther. 2008;19:979–990. doi: 10.1089/hum.2008.107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cai X, Conley SM, Naash MI. RPE65: role in the visual cycle, human retinal disease, and gene therapy. Ophthalmic Genet. 2009;30:57–62. doi: 10.1080/13816810802626399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Williams DS. Usher syndrome: animal models, retinal function of Usher proteins, and prospects for gene therapy. Vision Res. 2008;48:433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2007.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Saihan Z, Webster AR, Luxon L, Bitner-Glindzicz M. Update on Usher syndrome. Curr Opin Neurol. 2009;22:19–27. doi: 10.1097/wco.0b013e3283218807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES