ICCnotes(beta)

Inherited Cardiac Conditions reference

Genetic testing in inherited cardiac conditions

How to think about genetic testing in ICC

Genetic testing in inherited cardiac conditions is most useful when performed in an affected proband with a well-defined phenotype. The aim is not simply to "find a gene": it is to confirm a diagnosis, refine prognosis in selected conditions, enable cascade testing of relatives, and support reproductive counselling. Results must always be interpreted alongside phenotype, family history and variant classification, not in isolation.[1]

Core principles
  • Test the most clearly affected person first (the proband), not an unaffected relative
  • Phenotype comes before genotype: the clinical syndrome should guide which test is chosen, not the reverse
  • A pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variant enables cascade testing of relatives, but only once it is shown to fit the phenotype
  • A variant of uncertain significance (VUS) is not a diagnosis and must not be used for predictive testing in relatives[2]
  • A negative result does not exclude inherited disease, especially in genotype-negative HCM, DCM, Brugada syndrome and ACM/ARVC
  • Acquired causes and phenocopies must be excluded before an inherited diagnosis is assigned[1]

What a genetic test can and cannot answer

Before ordering a test, it helps to be clear about exactly which question it is answering, since a genetic result changes management in some circumstances but not others, and mainly once the phenotype is already well characterised in an affected individual. The table below sets out, question by question, what a test can genuinely tell you, and just as importantly, where its limits are, regardless of what the result turns out to be.

Clinical questionA genetic test can…
Is this truly an inherited condition?support the diagnosis when a variant is found, but cannot replace phenotype as the central diagnostic anchor
Which gene or variant is responsible?identify the familial variant if the condition is monogenic, but cannot do so in polygenic or gene-elusive disease
Can relatives be tested?enable targeted testing of relatives once a P/LP variant is confirmed in the proband, but cannot be used to test relatives predictively before then
Does the result change risk stratification?change risk stratification for selected genes (e.g. LMNA, FLNC, DSP, PLN, RBM20, some LQTS genotypes), but cannot do so for most genes
What if the result is negative?lower clinical suspicion in some contexts, but cannot exclude inherited disease on its own
What if the result is a VUS?flag a variant of interest for future reference, but cannot be used for predictive cascade testing

The practical sequence continues in What to Test (which conditions are worth testing), Who to Test (eligibility and counselling), then What to Do with Results (interpreting and acting on what comes back).

References & Review Date

Last reviewed: July 2026

  1. Musunuru K, et al. Genetic Testing for Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020;13(4):e000067. DOI: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067
  2. Richards S, et al. 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. 2015;17(5):405–424. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30

Genetic basis by condition

Before considering genetic testing in your patient, it helps to know whether their condition is usually monogenic, usually complex/polygenic, or has major acquired phenocopies that must be excluded first.

ConditionMonogenic (Mendelian)Acquired / phenocopyComplex (likely polygenic)
Cardiomyopathies
ACM / ARVC~50–60% (desmosomal: PKP2, DSP, DSG2, DSC2, JUP)Not a cause; cardiac sarcoidosis and myocarditis mimic the phenotype~40–50% gene-elusive, likely polygenic component
HCM~40–60% (sarcomeric, e.g. MYH7, MYBPC3)Not a cause; exclude hypertensive/athletic LVH, amyloid, Fabry~40–60% genotype-negative, increasingly polygenic
DCM~30–40% (up to ~50–60% with family history: TTN, LMNA, FLNC)Common: myocarditis, alcohol, tachycardia-mediated, peripartum, chemotherapy, thyroidRemainder reflects polygenic susceptibility with environmental triggers
NDLVCDCM/ACM-overlap genes present in a share of cases (DSP, FLNC, DES, LMNA, TTN), but this is a heterogeneous umbrella group, not a single disease, so a reliable overall percentage cannot be givenIncludes post-myocarditis scarThe non-monogenic remainder is itself heterogeneous, likely polygenic
RCMA minority (sarcomeric, desmin, hereditary ATTR)Commonest: AL amyloidosis, haemochromatosis, sarcoidosis, endomyocardial fibrosis, radiation, hypereosinophilic diseaseLimited; most non-genetic RCM has an identifiable cause
Channelopathies
LQTS~75–80% (KCNQ1/KCNH2/SCN5A = ~90% of genotyped)Acquired LQT (QT-prolonging drugs, hypokalaemia/hypomagnesaemia, bradycardia) is a separate, reversible entity~20–25% gene-elusive
CPVT~60% (RYR2 ~50–55%, CASQ2)No acquired CPVT, but its hallmark bidirectional VT has mimics (classically digoxin toxicity)~35–40% gene-elusive
Brugada syndromeOnly ~20–30% (SCN5A), the lowest of the channelopathiesPhenocopies: fever, drugs, electrolyte/metabolic disturbance~70% gene-elusive; oligogenic/polygenic with a structural substrate
SQTSA minority (gain-of-function KCNH2/KCNQ1/KCNJ2)Secondary short QT (hyperkalaemia, hypercalcaemia, acidosis, digoxin) is separate and reversibleMost cases gene-elusive; architecture incompletely defined
Storage & Metabolic
Fabry disease~100%, GLA variant causing α-galactosidase A deficiencyN/AN/A
Danon disease~100%, LAMP2 mutationN/AN/A
Pompe disease~100%, GAA mutations causing acid α-glucosidase deficiencyN/AN/A
Aortopathy & Connective Tissue
Marfan syndrome~100%, FBN1 variant (~25% de novo)N/AN/A
Loeys-Dietz syndromeClose to 100%, TGF-β pathway genes (TGFBR1/2, SMAD3, TGFB2/3)N/AN/A
Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndromeClose to 100%, COL3A1 (rarely COL1A1), ~50% de novoN/AN/A
Bicuspid aortic valveA minority, familial/syndromic (e.g. NOTCH1)Not a cause (congenital malformation)The majority: multifactorial/polygenic; ~9–10% of first-degree relatives affected
Muscular Dystrophy & Neuromuscular
Duchenne/Becker muscular dystrophy~100%, DMD-gene mutations affecting dystrophin (~1/3 de novo)N/AN/A
Myotonic dystrophy~100%, DM1 (DMPK CTG expansion) and DM2 (CNBP CCTG expansion)N/AN/A
Friedreich ataxia~100%, biallelic FXN variants (~96% biallelic GAA-repeat expansion, ~4% expansion plus another pathogenic variant)N/AN/A
Infiltrative
AmyloidosisHereditary ATTRv (TTR variants, e.g. V122I, T60A, V30M)AL (plasma-cell dyscrasia) and ATTRwt (age-related); ATTRwt is the commonest cardiac form in the elderlyNot a recognised mechanism
Mitochondrial
Mitochondrial diseaseMost known mitochondrial-disease genes are nuclear (Mendelian)Rare (e.g. some drug-induced mtDNA depletion)mtDNA point variants (maternally transmitted, heteroplasmy) and single large mtDNA deletions (usually sporadic); monogenic-but-non-Mendelian, not polygenic; no reliable universal nuclear:mtDNA percentage split

Within each group, conditions are listed by descending monogenic contribution. Rows highlighted green have a high (typically ≥50%) monogenic contribution, meaning genetic testing is likely to be high-yield once the phenotype fits. A negative genetic test in a highlighted condition with a convincing phenotype is unusual and worth revisiting (wrong gene tested, assay limitation, atypical variant type) rather than accepted at face value. Rows highlighted amber have a lower monogenic yield, but genetic testing is still clearly indicated: in Brugada syndrome to enable cascade testing of relatives when a variant is identified, and in cardiac amyloidosis to separate hereditary ATTRv from wild-type ATTRwt, which determines whether family screening is needed at all.

Why this matters for testing yield

The spread above is wide: Fabry, Marfan and LQTS testing is close to deterministic once the phenotype fits, while Brugada syndrome and SQTS testing mostly excludes a small minority rather than confirming a diagnosis, and bicuspid aortic valve is predominantly a polygenic/multifactorial trait rather than a single-gene disorder. Setting expectations before ordering a test, both for the clinician and the family, avoids over-interpreting a negative result in a low-yield condition or under-reacting to one in a high-yield condition.

References & Review Date

Last reviewed: July 2026

  1. Arbelo E, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(37):3503–3626. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194

Full per-condition citations for every figure above are on that condition's own Aetiology section.

General principles, before the eligibility criteria
  • Take a three-generation family history first. This is the step before any test is ordered, and it is the strongest recommendation in this area: the 2024 AHA/ACC guideline makes evaluation of familial inheritance including a three-generation family history a Class 1 part of the initial assessment, and asks specifically for suspected sudden-death events to be captured alongside diagnosed disease[6]. It determines who the proband is, whether the disease is familial, and which relatives are at risk regardless of what any test returns
  • Test the most clearly affected living person first, not an unaffected relative
  • Avoid broad-panel testing of unaffected relatives before the proband has been tested
  • In sudden-death families, test the deceased where a sample exists (molecular autopsy, see R138 below)
  • Where a post-mortem has already shown a cardiomyopathy, genetic testing of the deceased is recommended in its own right if a genetic diagnosis would help the surviving relatives (ESC 2023 Class I; AHA 2024 Class 1 for HCM found at post-mortem)[2][6]. This is a different route from R138: R138 covers the structurally normal heart, whereas a cardiomyopathy at autopsy is tested on the matching condition panel (R131, R132 or R133) using stored tissue
  • Never use a VUS for predictive testing (see What to Do with Results)
  • Reassess the phenotype before ordering a test, not just the reason for referral
  • Appropriate pre-test information, informed consent and access to genetic counselling should be provided before testing (pre-test) and after a result returns (post-test), according to the test, clinical context and local pathway, see Genetic Counselling below

UK National Genomic Test Directory (Version 9, 2026/27[1])

General Requirements for All Tests

All testing should be:

  • Performed in parallel with expert phenotypic assessment in an Inherited Cardiac Clinic (ICC)
  • With clinical genetics support
  • Targeted at those where genetic/genomic diagnosis will guide management for proband or family

Full guidelines: National Genomic Test Directory (v9, 2026/27)

Arrhythmia

R127 Long QT Syndrome

Testing Method: Small Panel (76 genes) | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Testing criteria (meet ONE OR MORE):

  • QTc ≥500ms in repeated 12-lead ECGs
  • LQTS risk score ≥3.5 (Schwartz 2011)
  • QTc ≥480ms in repeated ECGs AND unexplained syncope
  • QTc ≥480ms AND sudden unexplained death <60 years in 1st/2nd degree relative

Main Genes (LQTS Panel)

KCNQ1 KCNH2 SCN5A CALM1 CALM2 CALM3 CACNA1C KCNE1 KCNE2 + 67 others

Secondary causes must be excluded before testing

R128 Brugada Syndrome

Testing Method: Small Panel (13 genes) | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Testing criteria (meet ONE):

  • Spontaneous Type 1 ST elevation ≥2mm in ≥1 right precordial lead
  • Type 1 ST elevation with Na-channel blocker, AND ONE OR MORE of: VF/VT, syncope, FH of SCD <45y, coved ECG in family, agonal respiration, atrial arrhythmias <30y
  • Sodium channel disease suspicion (atrial arrhythmias, sinus/conduction disease, QT prolongation)

Genes Tested

SCN5A GPD1L CACNA1C CACNB2 SCN1B + 8 others

R129 Catecholaminergic Polymorphic VT

Testing Method: Small Panel (214 genes) | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Structurally normal heart, normal ECG, AND:

  • Exercise/catecholamine-induced bidirectional VT or polymorphic PVCs/VT/VF in patient <40 years, OR
  • Exercise-induced arrhythmias with positive FH of CPVT (symptomatic family member unavailable), OR
  • Same as above but age >40 years

Main Genes

RYR2 CASQ2 CALM1-3 TRDN TECRL + 209 others

R130 Short QT Syndrome

Testing Method: Small Panel (224 genes) | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

  • QTc ≤330ms, OR
  • QTc <360ms AND (FH of SQTS OR FH of SCD ≤40y OR VT/VF survival)

Main Genes

KCNH2 KCNQ1 KCNJ2 + 221 others

Cardiomyopathy

R131 Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

Testing Method: WES or Medium Panel | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Testing criteria (meet ONE OR MORE):

  • Adult with wall thickness ≥15 mm in ≥1 LV segment, NOT explained solely by loading conditions (e.g. hypertension), AND age of onset <60 years
  • Child <18 years with LV wall thickness >2 standard deviations above predicted mean (z-score >2)
  • Increased LV wall thickness ≥13 mm in ≥1 LV segment, in patient with 1st degree relative with unequivocal disease (LVH ≥15 mm), where affected family member unavailable for testing
  • Deceased individual with pathologically confirmed HCM (post-mortem DNA analysis)

Additional requirements:

  • Testing recommended when relatives will benefit from cascade testing using genetic diagnosis
  • Testing in parallel with expert phenotypic assessment in ICC, including clinical genetics support

Genes Tested (Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Panel - 49 genes)

MYBPC3 MYH7 TNNT2 TNNI3 TPM1 ACTC1 MYL2 MYL3 + 41 others

Note: R135 Paediatric/syndromic cardiomyopathy should be used where atypical features suggest broader gene testing needed

R132 Dilated and Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy

Testing Method: WES or Medium Panel | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Testing criteria (meet ONE OR MORE):

  • LVEDD >2 SD AND/OR reduced EF <45% (age/sex adjusted), AND age of onset <65 years
  • Criterion 2 (DCM with conduction): DCM with conduction defects, age of onset <65 years
  • Left and/or biventricular cardiomyopathy with variable myocardial dysfunction/fibrosis PLUS ventricular arrhythmias, after excluding inflammatory causes
  • Deceased individual with pathologically confirmed DCM/ACM, age of onset <65 years
  • Patient with DCM/ACM at ANY age if 1st degree relative has confirmed DCM/ACM

Main Genes Tested (DCM/ACM Panel)

TTN LMNA MYH7 BAG3 FLNC RBM20 SCN5A DSP PLN DES + others

Exclusions: DCM secondary to coronary disease or pressure/volume overload. Consult expert before testing DCM due to myocarditis, alcohol, peripartum, chemotherapy.

R133 Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy (ACM/ARVC)

Testing Method: Small Panel (134 genes) | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Testing criteria (meet ONE OR MORE):

  • DEFINITE diagnosis by Modified Task Force Criteria (Marcus 2010[3]), age of onset <50 years
  • Deceased with pathologically confirmed ARVC, relatives will benefit from cascade testing
  • Identification of P/LP variant would complete diagnostic Task Force Criteria

Desmosomal Genes

PKP2 DSG2 DSC2 DSP JUP TMEM43 PLN FLNC + 126 others

Other

R138 Molecular Autopsy / Idiopathic VF

Testing Method: WES/Medium Panel (841 genes) | Requesting Specialties: Cardiology, Clinical Genetics

Post-mortem testing:

  • Sudden death with normal PM <40 years, OR
  • Sudden death with normal PM <60y with FH unexplained SCD <40y in 1st/2nd degree relative, OR
  • Sudden death with normal PM <60y with FH unexplained SCD <60y (relative also had normal PM)

Cardiac arrest survivors (idiopathic VF):

  • No phenotype on comprehensive evaluation (coronary, imaging, ECG provocation) AND age <45 years

Panel: 841 genes covering all ICC, channelopathies, cardiomyopathies, SCD-associated genes

These criteria are from the NHS England National Genomic Test Directory.[1] Tests must be delivered by a Genomic Laboratory Hub and should only be requested where results are highly likely to change clinical management.

Genetic Counselling

Appropriate pre-test information, informed consent and access to genetic counselling should be provided according to the test, clinical context and local pathway, both before a test is sent (pre-test) and after a result returns (post-test)[1][2], provided by certified genetic counsellors or clinicians with appropriate training in genetics[3]. This applies regardless of the result, positive, negative, or a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), which should be interpreted using the ACMG/AMP 5-tier classification[4]. This does not imply a universal legal requirement for a separate formal counselling appointment in every jurisdiction or pathway.

When to refer for genetic counselling
  • Confirmed diagnosis of inherited cardiac condition
  • Family history of inherited cardiac condition or sudden cardiac death
  • Family cascade screening
  • Reproductive planning in affected individuals

References & Review Date

Last reviewed: August 2026

Gene panels & eligibility

  1. NHS England. National Genomic Test Directory (2026/27, v9). April 2026. Available at: england.nhs.uk/publication/national-genomic-test-directories/
  2. Arbelo E, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(37):3503–3626. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194
  3. Marcus FI, et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: proposed modification of the Task Force Criteria. Circulation. 2010;121(13):1533–1541. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.840827
  4. Zeppenfeld K, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(40):3997–4126. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac262
  5. Musunuru K, et al. Genetic Testing for Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020;13(4):e000067. DOI: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067
  6. Ommen SR, et al. 2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2024;149(23):e1239–e1311. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001250

Genetic counselling

  1. Charron P, et al. Genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(22):2715–2728. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq271
  2. Musunuru K, et al. Genetic Testing for Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020;13(4):e000067. DOI: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067
  3. Arbelo E, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(37):3503–3626. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194
  4. Richards S, et al. 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. 2015;17(5):405–424. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30
  5. Zeppenfeld K, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(40):3997–4126. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac262

Interpreting a genetic test result

ResultMeaningWhat to do
Pathogenic / Likely Pathogenic (P/LP)A disease-causing variant that fits the phenotypeUse for cascade testing; counsel relatives
Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS)Insufficient evidence to classify either wayDo not use for predictive testing; consider segregation studies, phenotype refinement, or reanalysis over time
NegativeNo reportable variant foundDoes not exclude inherited disease; continue phenotype-based family screening where indicated
Carrier / heterozygous (AR condition)Usually not sufficient alone to cause an autosomal recessive diseaseInterpret in the context of the specific condition and any second variant
Secondary / incidental findingAn actionable finding unrelated to the reason for testingManage via the clinical genetics pathway, separately from the primary indication

A VUS is not a positive result. It should not be used to reassure or discharge relatives, and should not be used for predictive cascade testing.[3] It may later be clarified by segregation analysis within the family, refinement of the phenotype, functional evidence, updated population-frequency data, or periodic laboratory reanalysis, a VUS reported today can be reclassified in either direction as evidence accumulates.

Reclassification is an active duty, not a background process. The 2024 AHA/ACC guideline makes serial re-evaluation of the clinical significance of any identified variant a Class 1 recommendation, because a reclassification can change both the diagnosis and who in the family needs cascade testing[6]. ESC 2023 puts it as systematic reclassification and communication back to families being crucial[5]. Two practical consequences: patients should be told at consent that an interpretation may change and that they may be recontacted, and a reclassification can reopen a family that was previously discharged.

What a negative result means, by scenario

ScenarioWhat the negative result means
Strong familial HCM phenotype, negative panelA genetic cause may still be present but undetected, or reflect a polygenic background (HCM is ~40–60% genotype-negative)
Brugada phenotype, negative SCN5ACommon and expected: SCN5A only accounts for ~20–30% of Brugada syndrome; a negative result does not exclude the diagnosis
Definite Fabry phenotype, negative GLAUnusual, since Fabry is close to 100% monogenic; recheck the phenotype, enzyme assay and testing quality rather than accepting the negative at face value
DCM with a strong acquired trigger (myocarditis, alcohol, tachycardia)Genetic yield is lower in this context; interpret alongside the acquired cause, and seek expert interpretation before excluding a genetic contribution entirely
Next: family screening

Family screening & cascade testing

Cascade testing is the single most cost-effective use of a genetic result: once a P/LP variant is confirmed in an affected proband, relatives can be offered a fast, cheap, targeted single-variant test rather than a broad panel.[1][2]

1
Proband tested
Condition-matched panel, WES, or WGS as clinically indicated (see Testing Methods).
2
P/LP found: relatives offered targeted testing
A single, fast, low-cost test for the exact familial variant, not a repeat panel.
3
Outcome
Genotype-positive: enter condition-specific clinical surveillance.
Genotype-negative: discharged, with a safety net, advise re-assessment if symptoms develop or if new clinically relevant information emerges in the family.

If no familial variant is found, predictive genetic testing should not be offered to relatives when the proband's test was negative or returned only a VUS. Instead, relatives are followed with phenotype-based clinical screening (ECG, echocardiogram, and condition-specific investigations), at an interval guided by the condition and family history, not a genetic result.

What to test in relatives

Proband resultRelative testing
P/LP variantTargeted single-variant testing
VUS, testing affected relatives or parentsSegregation testing should be considered (ESC 2023 Class IIa) where it might allow the variant to be interpreted with confidence[5]
VUS, testing phenotype-negative relativesNot for predictive purposes. Usefulness purely for variant reclassification is uncertain (AHA 2024 Class 2b)[6]
NegativeClinical (phenotype-based) screening, not genetic predictive testing
No proband available for testingConsider testing another affected relative, or molecular autopsy if the proband is deceased (see Who to Test, R138)
Children in a family with a known P/LP variantCascade testing should be considered (ESC 2023 Class IIa), weighed against four things the guideline names explicitly: the underlying cardiomyopathy, the expected age of onset, how the disease has presented in this family, and the clinical and legal consequences of testing a child[5]
A first-degree relative who has diedDo not let the branch stop there. Clinical evaluation of that person's own close relatives, i.e. second-degree relatives of the index patient, should be considered (ESC 2023 Class IIa)[5]
Next: what happens after the result

Surveillance after the result

A genetic result is not an endpoint: its main practical output is who now needs watching, how often, and for how long. The two guidelines give slightly different intervals, and both are reasonable to follow.

WhoESC 2023AHA 2024 (HCM)
Genotype-positive, phenotype-negative ECG and echocardiography from childhood to old age: every 1 to 3 years up to age 60, then every 3 to 5 years[5] Every 1 to 2 years in children and adolescents, every 3 to 5 years in adults[6]
Relatives where no P/LP variant was found in the proband, or no genetic testing was done An initial multiparametric evaluation with ECG and cardiac imaging is recommended (Class I); regular long-term evaluation should be considered (Class IIa)[5] Clinical screening of first-degree relatives with ECG and echocardiography is offered alongside cascade testing (Class 1)[6]
Genotype-negative relatives in a genotype-positive family Discharged, with advice to return if symptoms develop or new family information emerges (Class I)[5] Ongoing screening is not indicated (Class 3: No Benefit), unless the familial variant is later downgraded to a VUS, likely benign or benign[6]

When surveillance can stop. Where the index patient has been fully studied including negative genetic testing, the family is large enough to be informative, and the disease appears to be isolated to that one person, ESC 2023 says stopping periodic surveillance could be considered in first-degree relatives aged 50 or over with normal cardiac investigations[5]. Inheritance pattern also matters: heterozygous carriers of a clearly recessive form can usually be discharged, and heterozygous carriers of an X-linked disease may reasonably delay cardiac evaluation[5].

No preventive drug therapy for an unaffected carrier. This is the question most genotype-positive, phenotype-negative patients ask, and both guidelines answer it the same way. ESC 2023 states there is no evidence supporting current pharmacological agents to prevent disease developing in non-affected carriers[5]; the 2024 AHA/ACC guideline states plainly that pre-emptive medical therapy is not offered in genotype-positive, phenotype-negative individuals, and that an ICD is not indicated for primary prevention in that group (Class 3: No Benefit)[6]. The single documented exception is different in kind: in early disease expression of DCM or NDLVC, not in an unaffected carrier, first-line heart-failure therapy may be considered to slow progression (ESC 2023 Class IIb)[5]. The distinction between an unaffected carrier and early disease is therefore the one that decides whether any drug is started at all.

References & Review Date

Last reviewed: August 2026

  1. Musunuru K, et al. Genetic Testing for Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ Genom Precis Med. 2020;13(4):e000067. DOI: 10.1161/HCG.0000000000000067
  2. Charron P, et al. Genetic counselling and testing in cardiomyopathies: a position statement of the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Myocardial and Pericardial Diseases. Eur Heart J. 2010;31(22):2715–2728. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq271
  3. Richards S, et al. 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. 2015;17(5):405–424. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2015.30
  4. Zeppenfeld K, et al. 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(40):3997–4126. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac262
  5. Arbelo E, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(37):3503–3626. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194
  6. Ommen SR, et al. 2024 AHA/ACC/AMSSM/HRS/PACES/SCMR Guideline for the Management of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Circulation. 2024;149(23):e1239–e1311. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001250

Tiered testing strategy

ICC genetic investigation follows a tiered approach, under the guidance of the cardiac genetics team, escalating to broader and more expensive tests only when simpler methods are insufficient. The guide below outlines typical points to move between tiers on a negative or inconclusive result, and what decisions generally follow a positive result at each stage.

1
First-Line = Targeted Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Gene Panel
  • Pathogenic / Likely Pathogenic: proceed to genetic counselling and cascade testing of first-degree relatives
  • Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS): pursue segregation studies; do not use a VUS alone to drive clinical decisions
  • Negative: escalate to Tier 2 if clinical suspicion remains high
↓ panel negative or inconclusive with ongoing clinical suspicion
2
Second-Line = Whole Exome Sequencing (WES)
What it adds: Broadens the search to all protein-coding genes. Consider trio WES (sequencing the proband plus both biological parents) as an alternative to solo WES when any of the following apply:
  • Paediatric or severe early-onset phenotype
  • Suspected de novo variant (no family history, normal parental phenotypes)
  • Syndromic features or intellectual disability
  • Consanguineous family (biallelic variants suspected)
NB: WES does not reliably detect large deletions or duplications; chromosomal microarray (CMA) can also be considered, as a separate test, if syndromic features suggest a microdeletion syndrome.
↓ WES negative or non-coding / structural variant strongly suspected
3
Third-Line = Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
What it adds: Includes non-coding regions, structural variants, and repeat expansions. Primarily via national genomics programmes (e.g. NHS Genomic Medicine Service).
  • Add trio design if a de novo variant is still suspected in a paediatric or unresolved case
  • Consider RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) alongside if a splice-disrupting variant is suspected but unconfirmed by DNA analysis
↓ pathogenic or likely pathogenic result identified at any tier
Post-Result Pathways
  • Cascade testing: offer targeted single-variant testing to first-degree relatives via cardiac genetics
  • Genetic counselling: discuss family planning, employment, and insurance implications with a multidisciplinary team (MDT)
  • Reproductive options: preimplantation genetic testing (PGT-M) via in vitro fertilisation (IVF), or invasive prenatal testing (chorionic villus sampling, CVS, or amniocentesis)
  • VUS ongoing review: segregation studies, functional evidence, periodic database reanalysis

Assay & analysis methods

A brief overview of what each test actually looks at, grouped by what they analyse (DNA then RNA) and ordered by the scale of change detected, from single DNA bases up to whole chromosomes.

Expand a category for indications, technical approach, limitations, and ICC applications.

DNA analysis · by scale of change
Sequencing-based assayssingle bases to whole genome

Detect single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small insertions/deletions across a range of genomic scope, from condition-specific gene panels to whole genome. Trio testing (proband + both parents sequenced simultaneously) falls within this category.

Assay When to Order What It Detects Technical Approach Key Limitations ICC Application
Targeted Gene Panel (NGS)
  • First-line in clinically suspected ICC
  • Proband with HCM, DCM, ARVC, LQTS, CPVT, Brugada
  • Not cascade testing, a broad panel is used to identify the causative variant in the proband; once found, relatives move to targeted single-variant testing (see Sanger, below)
SNVs and small indels in a curated set of disease-associated genes (typically 50–300 genes) NGS of enriched target regions; bioinformatic variant calling against reference genome
  • Misses variants outside the gene panel
  • Generally cannot detect large CNVs
  • Non-coding variants missed
HCM panel (MYBPC3, MYH7, TNNT2, TNNI3, TPM1, MYL2, ACTC1); LQTS panel (KCNQ1, KCNH2, SCN5A); ARVC panel (PKP2, DSP, DSC2, DSG2, JUP)
Sanger Sequencing
  • Confirming a variant identified on NGS panel
  • Cascade testing when family variant is already known (single-site)
Point mutations and small indels in a single amplicon (~200–1000 bp) Dideoxy chain termination; fluorescent capillary electrophoresis of a single PCR product
  • Very low throughput, one amplicon per run
  • Cannot detect CNVs
  • Not suitable for novel discovery
Confirming MYH7 p.Arg403Gln in at-risk relatives of a known HCM family; validating a KCNH2 variant before cascade testing
Whole Exome Sequencing (WES)
  • Panel-negative with strong clinical suspicion
  • Atypical or syndromic phenotype
  • Rare or undiagnosed cardiomyopathy
  • Paediatric cases where diagnosis is uncertain
SNVs and indels across all ~20,000 protein-coding exons (~1–2% of genome) Hybridisation capture enriches exome; NGS library sequenced to ~100× depth; phenotype-driven gene prioritisation
  • Misses non-coding regions (introns, promoters)
  • Limited CNV detection
  • Repeat expansions not reliably called
  • Higher VUS burden than targeted panels
Novel truncating RBM20 variant in panel-negative familial DCM; FLNC truncating variant in NDLVC after negative panel
Trio Exome Sequencing
Proband + both parents
  • Severe early-onset or paediatric phenotype
  • Suspected de novo variant
  • Syndromic features of unknown cause
  • Consanguineous family (biallelic variants suspected)
  • Solo WES inconclusive
De novo variants; compound heterozygous variants with phasing; inherited variants with one-step segregation data WES on proband and both biological parents simultaneously; de novo calling compares child VCF against parental VCFs; increases diagnostic yield vs solo WES
  • Requires both biological parents to provide samples
  • Higher cost than solo WES
  • Still misses non-coding variants and repeat expansions
De novo KCNQ1 in neonatal LQTS; de novo PTPN11 in a Noonan-associated HCM phenotype; compound heterozygous MYH7/MYBPC3 in severe paediatric HCM
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
  • Unresolved after panel + WES
  • Suspected non-coding, intronic, or structural variant
  • Repeat expansion disorder (Friedreich, myotonic dystrophy)
  • Research or national genomics programme
SNVs, indels, CNVs, structural variants, non-coding variants, and repeat expansions across the entire genome NGS without prior target enrichment; ~30–50× depth; structural variant callers (Manta, DELLY); repeat expansion callers (ExpansionHunter)
  • High cost and large data volumes
  • Very high VUS burden in non-coding regions
  • Non-coding variant interpretation remains limited clinically
Non-coding LMNA promoter variant in familial DCM; FXN GAA repeat expansion in a Friedreich-associated HCM phenotype; DMPK CTG expansion in myotonic dystrophy cardiomyopathy
Trio Genome Sequencing
Proband + both parents
  • Most complex unresolved cases where trio WES is insufficient
  • Suspected non-coding or structural de novo variant
  • NHS Genomic Medicine Service or equivalent programme
Full genome of proband + both parents; de novo SNVs, CNVs, SVs, and non-coding variants with parental phasing; maximum diagnostic resolution WGS on three individuals simultaneously; de novo calling against parental backgrounds; phasing detects compound heterozygous events across all variant classes
  • Very high cost (≈3× WGS); requires both parents
  • Complex bioinformatics
  • Primarily available in research or national genomic programmes
De novo non-coding regulatory variant in severe unexplained paediatric cardiomyopathy; structural PKP2 rearrangement after negative trio WES in ARVC
Copy number & structural analysisexon to gene level

Detect exon-level or gene-level deletions and duplications. Used as an adjunct when standard sequencing is negative but a copy number change is suspected based on clinical features or incomplete co-segregation.

Assay When to Order What It Detects Technical Approach Key Limitations ICC Application
MLPA
Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification
  • Suspected exon-level CNV after negative sequencing
  • PKP2 deletions in sequence-negative ARVC
  • LDLR exon CNVs in severe familial hypercholesterolaemia
  • LMNA or DMD CNVs in familial DCM / muscular dystrophy
Exon-level deletions and duplications in targeted genes (typically 40–50 probes covering one or a few genes) Probe pairs flanking each exon ligated and PCR-amplified; capillary electrophoresis quantifies relative probe copy number
  • Only detects CNVs within pre-designed probe regions
  • Cannot detect point mutations or balanced rearrangements
  • Requires gene-specific kit (e.g. P082 for PKP2)
PKP2 exon 1–5 deletion in sequence-negative ARVC; LDLR CNV (~15% of pathogenic FH variants); LMNA exon deletion in conduction-system DCM
qPCR / ddPCR
Quantitative / Digital Droplet PCR
  • Targeted CNV confirmation after CMA or MLPA
  • Known family variant follow-up where MLPA unavailable
Relative copy number of specific targeted loci; gene expression levels via RT-qPCR Fluorescent probe quantification relative to reference gene; ddPCR partitions reaction into droplets for absolute digital counting
  • Only analyses pre-defined target regions
  • Requires prior knowledge of variant
  • Not suitable for discovery
LMNA exon deletion quantification in familial DCM before cascade testing; DMD exon copy number confirmation in Duchenne cardiomyopathy
Cytogenetic analysischromosome level

Detect chromosomal-scale abnormalities, from whole-chromosome aneuploidies (karyotyping) to sub-megabase copy number changes (microarray). Indicated for syndromic presentations, congenital heart disease, or prenatal screening contexts.

Assay When to Order What It Detects Technical Approach Key Limitations ICC Application
Chromosomal Microarray (CMA)
  • Syndromic ICC with dysmorphic features, intellectual disability, or congenital heart disease
  • Suspected microdeletion/duplication syndrome (22q11, Williams, Noonan region)
  • Panel and WES negative with syndromic features persisting
CNVs (microdeletions and microduplications) at ≥50 kb resolution genome-wide; regions of homozygosity (ROH) SNP or CGH array; patient DNA hybridised against reference; signal intensity ratios indicate copy number; ROH from B-allele frequency patterns
  • Cannot detect balanced translocations or point mutations
  • UPD without LOH not detected
  • CNVs below ~50 kb missed
22q11.2 deletion (DiGeorge) + DCM + congenital heart defect; 7q11.23 deletion (Williams) + supravalvular aortic stenosis; NF1 microdeletion in a Noonan-related HCM phenotype
Karyotyping
G-banded chromosome analysis
  • Suspected aneuploidy with cardiomyopathy (Down, Turner, Klinefelter)
  • Congenital heart disease + dysmorphic features
  • Suspected balanced translocation disrupting a cardiac gene
Whole-chromosome abnormalities: aneuploidies, large structural rearrangements, balanced and unbalanced translocations (>5–10 Mb resolution) Blood lymphocytes cultured and arrested in metaphase; G-banding stain; microscopic karyogram of 22 autosomes + sex chromosomes
  • Poor resolution (~5–10 Mb); misses microdeletions detectable by CMA
  • Largely superseded by CMA for most syndromic indications
Turner syndrome (45,X) + bicuspid aortic valve; trisomy 21 + AVSD + dilated cardiomyopathy; balanced t(1;3) disrupting FLNC in unexplained RCM
FISH
Fluorescence In Situ Hybridisation
  • Confirming a specific known deletion (e.g. 22q11.2) after clinical suspicion or CMA screen
  • Rapid aneuploidy detection in prenatal samples
Specific chromosomal deletions, amplifications, or translocations at a single targeted locus Fluorescent probes hybridise to denatured chromosomal DNA; fluorescence microscopy detects copy number at the specific locus
  • Requires prior knowledge of region, cannot discover novel abnormalities
  • Single-locus; replaced by CMA for genome-wide analysis
22q11.2 deletion confirmation in DiGeorge syndrome + DCM; rapid trisomy 21 detection in fetal cardiac sample
Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT)
  • Prenatal screening in families at risk of chromosomal syndrome with cardiac involvement
  • Note: cannot diagnose monogenic ICC variants, use PGT-M or invasive testing for known family variants
Fetal aneuploidies (trisomy 21, 18, 13; sex chromosome abnormalities) from cell-free fetal DNA (cffDNA) in maternal blood; selected microdeletion syndromes on extended panels Cell-free DNA from maternal plasma (~10–15% fetal fraction); massively parallel sequencing; statistical over/under-representation of chromosomal regions infers fetal copy number
  • Screening only, positive requires confirmatory CVS or amniocentesis
  • Cannot diagnose monogenic ICC family variants
  • False positives on microdeletion panels
Trisomy 21 screening in fetus at risk of AVSD; 22q11.2 screening in family with DiGeorge syndrome; not suitable for monogenic HCM/LQTS family variant
RNA analysis
Transcriptomic analysisRNA & splicing

Analyses RNA rather than DNA. Used to confirm whether a DNA variant disrupts normal splicing or gene expression, primarily in specialist or research settings. Requires tissue in which the gene of interest is actively expressed.

Assay When to Order What It Detects Technical Approach Key Limitations ICC Application
RNA Sequencing (RNA-seq)
  • VUS with predicted splicing effect
  • Deep intronic or cryptic splice-site variant
  • Discordance between phenotype and genetic findings
  • Research investigation of cardiac gene expression
Aberrant splicing, exon skipping, cryptic exon use, allele-specific expression, fusion transcripts, and RNA expression levels RNA isolated from relevant tissue; reverse-transcribed to cDNA; NGS library sequenced; splice junctions and expression compared to reference transcriptome
  • Gene must be expressed in available tissue, many cardiac genes not expressed in blood
  • Requires fresh/frozen tissue; FFPE unsuitable
  • Not routine clinical practice; primarily research
TTN deep intronic variant causing exon skipping in DCM (cardiac biopsy RNA); PKP2 aberrant splice isoform in ARVC; SCN5A splice variant reclassification in Brugada syndrome

Reproductive options & variant follow-up

A genetic result continues to matter after testing, in two ways covered below: it can inform reproductive options, and its classification may be revisited as evidence evolves.

Reproductive options
Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT-M)
IVF-based embryo selection before implantation
Unaffected embryos selected at blastocyst stage before IVF transfer. Avoids transmission without requiring termination. Requires full IVF cycle. Regulated by HFEA in UK; eligibility requires high penetrance and significant morbidity/mortality.
Example: Couple with KCNQ1 LQT1 pathogenic variant → PGT-M selects unaffected embryos; unaffected pregnancy achieved.
Prenatal Genetic Testing
CVS or amniocentesis for a known family variant
CVS: ≥10 weeks; miscarriage risk ~0.5–1%. Amniocentesis: ≥15 weeks; miscarriage risk ~0.1–0.5%. Most relevant for severe early-onset conditions (Pompe, Danon, neonatal LQTS). Counselling must be non-directive.
Example: Known RYR2 pathogenic variant → amniocentesis confirms fetal genotype; if positive, neonatal surveillance and early beta-blocker planned pre-delivery.
Variant interpretation & follow-up
VUS Management
Variant of Uncertain Significance, principles
Do not use a VUS alone to drive ICD implantation, sport restriction, or cascade testing. Build evidence through: segregation, functional studies, population frequency (gnomAD), and computational predictors (SIFT, PolyPhen, SpliceAI).
Example: MYH7 missense VUS → found in 3/4 affected relatives, absent from 2 unaffected → reclassified likely pathogenic (PP1 + PS3 criteria met).
Genetic Reanalysis
Revisiting stored data as knowledge evolves
Periodic reanalysis of stored WES/WGS data against updated databases (ClinVar, gnomAD) and expanded gene lists. Diagnostic yield ~10–15% of previously unsolved cases. Driven by new gene–disease associations (ALPK3, FLNC) and VUS reclassifications.
Example: FLNC VUS in 2019 → reclassified likely pathogenic in 2023 reanalysis (new NDLVC evidence) → diagnosis without re-sequencing.

Gene Variants in Inherited Cardiac Conditions

An interactive reference of clinically significant variants across inherited cardiac conditions. Each entry summarises the inheritance pattern, mutation type, molecular mechanism, and key genotype–phenotype relationships. The full table is listed below; the interactive app additionally lets you filter it by condition, inheritance pattern and mechanism.[1][2]

Gene Condition Affected Component Inheritance Mutation Type Molecular Effect Genotype–Phenotype Relationships
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (HCM)
MYH7
35–40% of familial HCM
HCM
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Thick filament (β-MHC)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (>95%)Dominant Negative
  • Accounts for 35–40% of familial HCM; alongside MYBPC3 the most commonly identified causal gene[2]
  • Predominantly missense variants (>95%); truncating MYH7 variants are rare and when present more commonly cause DCM rather than HCM[1][2]
  • Mechanism: mutant β-myosin heavy chain incorporates into thick filaments as a "poison peptide", actively disrupting cross-bridge cycling via dominant negative effect, reducing total functional myosin disproportionately[9]
  • Earlier onset, greater hypertrophy, and higher SCD risk compared to MYBPC3-HCM; higher penetrance overall[9]
  • Cysteine substitutions in the myosin head domain (e.g., p.Arg403Gln) are among the most severe and penetrant; associated with early-onset presentation and high SCD risk[2][9]
MYBPC3
35–40% of familial HCM
HCM
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Thick filament (cMyBP-C)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Truncating & Missense (~70:30)Haploinsufficiency
  • Alongside MYH7, the most commonly identified HCM gene (~35–40% of familial cases)[2]
  • ~70% of pathogenic variants are truncating (frameshift, nonsense, splice-site) → NMD of mutant transcript → haploinsufficiency; ~30% are missense variants[1][2]
  • Mechanism: reduced cMyBP-C protein levels alter sarcomeric cross-bridge kinetics and Ca²⁺ sensitivity, impairing both contraction and relaxation[9]
  • Later onset and lower penetrance than MYH7; penetrance strongly age-related (increases each decade), many carriers are unaffected in the 3rd–4th decade[9]
  • South Asian founder variant c.2373insG (p.Gln791fs) is among the most prevalent HCM variants worldwide; homozygous carriers develop severe childhood-onset HCM[2]
TNNT2
~5% of familial HCM
HCM
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Thin filament (troponin T)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly MissenseDominant Negative
  • Accounts for ~5% of familial HCM[2]
  • Predominantly missense variants disrupting troponin T interaction with the thin filament regulatory complex[2]
  • Mechanism: increased myofilament Ca²⁺ sensitivity and impaired diastolic relaxation; dominant negative effect reduces total thin filament regulation disproportionately[9]
  • Disproportionately high SCD risk relative to degree of hypertrophy, some carriers die with near-normal or only mildly increased wall thickness[9]
  • Standard echocardiographic risk tools may underestimate SCD risk; genetic diagnosis is critical for appropriate surveillance intensity[9]
TNNI3
~5% of familial HCM
HCM
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Thin filament (troponin I)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly MissenseDominant Negative
  • Accounts for ~5% of familial HCM[2]
  • Predominantly missense variants (e.g., p.Arg145Gly, p.Arg162Gln) disrupting the inhibitory troponin I–actin interaction[2]
  • Mechanism: increased myofilament Ca²⁺ sensitivity → sustained systolic activation, impaired relaxation[9]
  • Associated with apical HCM variant in some kindreds[9]
  • Important allelic distinction: biallelic TNNI3 variants (different mechanism, gene dosage) cause restrictive cardiomyopathy in childhood, demonstrates how variant zygosity dictates phenotypic outcome within the same gene[9]
TPM1
~2% of familial HCM
HCM
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Thin filament (α-tropomyosin)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly MissenseDominant Negative
  • ~2% of familial HCM[2]
  • Predominantly missense variants in the α-tropomyosin coiled-coil domain[2]
  • Mechanism: shifts the thin filament toward the "on" state, increasing Ca²⁺ sensitivity and resting force generation[9]
  • The same gene causes DCM when different variants have the opposite functional effect (reduced Ca²⁺ sensitivity), demonstrates how allelic heterogeneity determines cardiomyopathy subtype[1][9]
  • Illustrates that phenotypic direction of a cardiomyopathy can be determined at the level of the individual variant within a single gene[9]
Dilated Cardiomyopathy (DCM)
TTN
~25% familial DCM; ~18% sporadic DCM
DCM
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Elastic filament (titin)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Truncating only (TTNtv)Haploinsufficiency
  • The most common genetic cause of DCM (~25% of familial, ~18% of sporadic cases)[3]
  • Exclusively truncating variants (TTNtv: frameshift, nonsense, splice-site) in constitutively expressed A-band exons (PSI ≥0.9) are established as pathogenic; TTN missense variants are not validated disease-causing[3]
  • Mechanism: haploinsufficiency reduces titin-based passive tension and impairs sarcomere assembly and mechano-sensing[3]
  • Incomplete penetrance (~40% in males, ~22% in females); environmental second-hits (alcohol, peripartum state, viral myocarditis) likely required for disease expression[3][9]
  • Strong association with peripartum cardiomyopathy, TTNtv carriers have lower rates of LV recovery following PPCM compared to non-carriers[3][9]
LMNA
~6% of DCM
DCM
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Nuclear Envelope
Nuclear lamina
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Truncating & Missense (~50:50)Haploinsufficiency
  • ~6% of DCM; a high-risk gene requiring proactive arrhythmia management[10]
  • Approximately equal proportions of truncating and missense variants, both can cause severe disease; non-missense variant type is an independent risk factor for worse arrhythmic outcomes[9][10]
  • Conduction disease (AV block, bundle branch block, AF) typically precedes systolic impairment by years; initial presentation may mimic isolated conduction system disease[10]
  • Ventricular arrhythmias and SCD risk are high even at preserved LVEF, ICD recommended at lower thresholds than non-LMNA DCM; the LMNA risk score (NSVT, LVEF, male sex, non-missense variant) guides decisions[9]
  • Early cardiac transplant listing is often appropriate given propensity for rapid, refractory disease progression[9][10]
PLN
Dutch/N. European founder variant
DCM
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Ca²⁺ Handling
SR Ca²⁺ pump (SERCA2a)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Missense / Small Deletion (p.Arg14del dominant)Dominant Negative
  • p.Arg14del is the dominant pathogenic variant; a founder variant prevalent in Dutch and Northern European populations[11]
  • Functionally a dominant negative "super-inhibitor": p.Arg14del PLN chronically impairs SERCA2a Ca²⁺ reuptake into the SR beyond normal inhibition[11]
  • Mechanism: diastolic Ca²⁺ overload → triggered ventricular arrhythmias and progressive cardiomyocyte dysfunction, leading to DCM[11]
  • Ventricular arrhythmias (VT/VF) occur at relatively preserved LVEF, early ICD is strongly recommended even before significant LV dysfunction[11][9]
  • High cardiac transplantation rate; prognosis without aggressive early management is poor[11]
RBM20
~2% of DCM
DCM
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Sarcomere
Titin splicing (RBM20)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (RSRSP hotspot)Loss of Function
  • ~2% of DCM; pathogenic variants are concentrated in the arginine-serine-rich RSRSP motif of the RNA-binding domain[10]
  • Predominantly missense variants within this hotspot; truncating variants outside this region may have milder or absent pathogenicity[10]
  • Mechanism: loss of titin mRNA splicing regulation → giant non-compliant titin isoforms → abnormal sarcomere mechanics and impaired Ca²⁺ handling[10]
  • Aggressive phenotype: severe early-onset DCM with one of the highest VT/VF burdens of any DCM gene, ICD indication is strong even at modest LV impairment[9][10]
  • Cardiac transplantation often required in the 3rd–4th decade; RSRSP hotspot variants carry particularly poor prognosis[10]
FLNC
~4% of DCM
DCM
Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Cytoskeleton
Z-disc / cytoskeletal linker
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly TruncatingHaploinsufficiency
  • ~4% of DCM; truncating FLNC variants specifically cause DCM (missense FLNC variants more commonly associate with HCM or myofibrillar myopathy)[1][10]
  • Predominantly truncating variants (frameshift, nonsense) → haploinsufficiency of filamin C → impaired cytoskeletal linkage and mechanical resilience[10]
  • High arrhythmia burden disproportionate to the degree of LV dysfunction; NSVT and sustained VT are common early in the disease course[9][10]
  • Cardiac biopsy shows protein aggregates (desmin, αB-crystallin), a distinguishing feature from sarcomeric DCM that may aid diagnosis[10]
  • ICD strongly indicated even at modest LV dysfunction; assess for skeletal muscle involvement (myofibrillar myopathy)[9]
SCN5A
~2–3% of DCM
DCM
DCM with Conduction Disease
Ion Channel
Na⁺ channel (Nav1.5)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Truncating & Missense (LoF)Loss of Function
  • ~2–3% of DCM; Nav1.5 loss-of-function causes a form of cardiomyopathy with prominent conduction disease[10]
  • Mix of truncating and missense LoF variants; both reduce peak INa in working cardiomyocytes[10]
  • Conduction disease (AV block, sinus node dysfunction, bundle branch block) commonly precedes LV systolic impairment, initial presentation may be indistinguishable from isolated conduction system disease[9][10]
  • Overlap with Brugada syndrome: some SCN5A LoF carriers manifest a type 1 Brugada ECG pattern on sodium channel blockade or fever[4][12]
  • Pacemaker frequently required in addition to ICD; mechanistically distinct from sarcomeric DCM and may represent a primary electrical cardiomyopathy[9]
Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy (ARVC / ACM)
PKP2
~40–45% of ARVC
ARVC
ARVC
Desmosome
Desmosomal plaque (PKP2)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Truncating (predominant) & MissenseHaploinsufficiency
  • The most common ARVC gene, accounting for ~40–45% of cases[6]
  • Predominantly truncating variants (~60%); missense variants (~40%) also pathogenic; truncating variants generally associate with higher penetrance[1][6]
  • Mechanism: plakophilin-2 haploinsufficiency disrupts desmosomal integrity → cardiomyocyte detachment under mechanical stress → fibrofatty replacement predominantly in the RV free wall[6]
  • Exercise substantially accelerates disease progression, and restriction from competitive and endurance sport is strongly advised from the time of genetic diagnosis, though the intensity/type of permitted activity may be individualized with specialist input[6]
  • Penetrance is incomplete and sex-dependent (higher in males); index cases typically present with VT or aborted cardiac arrest in the 2nd–4th decade[6]
DSP
~10–15% of ARVC/ACM
ARVC
Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy (ACM)
Desmosome
Desmoplakin (DSP)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly TruncatingHaploinsufficiency
  • Accounts for ~10–15% of ARVC/ACM; causes a predominantly left-sided or biventricular phenotype ("DSP cardiomyopathy") rather than classic right-dominant ARVC[6]
  • Predominantly truncating variants (frameshift, nonsense, splice-site); missense variants also described in the N-terminal plakin domain[1][6]
  • Epicardial LGE on CMR (particularly in the LV lateral wall) is a hallmark finding; higher SCD risk than PKP2-ARVC[6]
  • Biallelic DSP variants cause Carvajal syndrome: ACM + woolly hair + palmoplantar keratoderma (complete penetrance in biallelic carriers)[6]
  • Exercise restriction and ICD indications mirror PKP2-ARVC; the left-dominant phenotype may cause diagnostic delay if ARVC is not initially considered[6]
DSG2
~5–10% of ARVC
ARVC
ARVC
Desmosome
Desmosomal cadherin (DSG2)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Missense & TruncatingLoss of Function
  • ~5–10% of ARVC; desmoglein-2 loss-of-function impairs desmosomal cohesion between adjacent cardiomyocytes[6]
  • Mix of missense and truncating variants; both reduce desmoglein-2 adhesive function via different mechanisms[1][6]
  • Can present with mixed right and left ventricular involvement; phenotype may overlap with DCM or ACM[6]
  • Important diagnostic pitfall: some DSG2 carriers initially meet HCM criteria before evolving to an ARVC/ACM phenotype, longitudinal surveillance and genetic diagnosis are essential in atypical cardiomyopathy presentations[6]
  • Compound heterozygous DSG2 variants (two different variants on separate alleles) may produce more severe disease[6]
JUP
Rare; Greek island founder variant
ARVC
Naxos Disease (AR-ACM)
Desmosome
Armadillo protein (JUP)
AR
Autosomal Recessive
Truncating (biallelic)Loss of Function
  • Rare; requires biallelic truncating variants, homozygous c.2157del2 is the Greek island founder variant[6]
  • Clinical triad: arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy + woolly hair + palmoplantar keratoderma; full penetrance in biallelic carriers[6]
  • Mechanism: complete JUP loss disrupts both desmosomal adhesion and Wnt/β-catenin signalling, promoting fibrofatty myocardial replacement[6]
  • Heterozygous carriers are largely clinically unaffected, demonstrating that full JUP loss (not haploinsufficiency) is required for disease, contrasting with most desmosomal AD variants[6]
  • Exemplifies how the same gene causes fundamentally different phenotypes based on zygosity: biallelic → severe syndromic disease; monoallelic → no significant disease[6]
Long QT Syndrome
KCNQ1
~30–35% of LQTS
LQT
Long QT Syndrome Type 1
Ion Channel
K⁺ channel, IKs (KCNQ1)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Missense (predominant) & TruncatingLoss of Function
  • Most common LQTS gene (~30–35% of cases); reduces IKs (slow delayed rectifier) current duration[4]
  • Predominantly missense variants (~70%); truncating variants (~30%) cause haploinsufficiency; missense variants with dominant negative effect on the tetrameric IKs channel tend to cause more severe phenotype[4][5]
  • Classic trigger: exercise and swimming (physiological IKs augmentation during adrenergic stimulation is absent), events are largely preventable with beta-blockers; strongest drug response of any LQTS subtype[4][5]
  • ECG: characteristic broad-based or monophasic T-wave; QTc may appear near-normal at rest in some carriers[4]
  • Biallelic KCNQ1 variants → Jervell and Lange-Nielsen syndrome: congenital sensorineural deafness + severe LQT1 with high arrhythmia risk, requiring aggressive management[4][5]
KCNH2
~25–30% of LQTS
LQT
Long QT Syndrome Type 2
Ion Channel
K⁺ channel, IKr (hERG)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Missense (predominant) & TruncatingDominant Negative
  • Second most common LQTS gene (~25–30%); reduces IKr (rapid delayed rectifier) current duration[4]
  • Predominantly missense variants (~80%); many cause protein trafficking defects, mutant channels are retained in the ER reducing surface IKr; dominant negative mechanism is common; truncating variants (~20%) cause haploinsufficiency[4]
  • Classic triggers: sudden auditory stimuli (alarm clocks, phone), emotional stress, and the postpartum period, events occur in these specific contexts[4][5]
  • ECG: notched, bifid, or low-amplitude T-waves; QTc may be normal or borderline at rest especially in younger females[4]
  • Strict avoidance of all QT-prolonging drugs is paramount; moderate beta-blocker response; left cardiac sympathetic denervation or ICD for high-risk or refractory cases[5]
SCN5A
~5–10% of LQTS
LQT
Long QT Syndrome Type 3
Ion Channel
Na⁺ channel (Nav1.5)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (GoF)Gain of Function
  • ~5–10% of LQTS; gain-of-function Nav1.5 variants (predominantly missense) prevent complete channel inactivation after depolarisation[4]
  • Persistent late INa prolongs the plateau phase (phase 2) of the action potential, causing marked QTc prolongation particularly at slow heart rates[4]
  • Triggers: rest and sleep; nocturnal events are characteristic, contrasting with LQT1 (exercise) and LQT2 (auditory/emotion)[4][5]
  • Beta-blockers less effective and can worsen bradycardia-related risk; late sodium current blockers (mexiletine, flecainide) shorten QTc and are key adjunctive therapy[5]
  • Note: LoF variants in the same SCN5A gene cause Brugada syndrome, opposite mechanism, opposite ECG, opposite trigger; illustrates importance of functional variant classification[4][12]
KCNJ2
Rare; ~10% of unexplained LQTS
LQT
Andersen-Tawil Syndrome (LQT7)
Ion Channel
K⁺ channel, IK1 (Kir2.1)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly MissenseLoss of Function
  • Rare; predominantly missense variants causing loss-of-function of IK1 (inward rectifier Kir2.1)[4]
  • Clinical triad: QT prolongation + periodic paralysis (hypokalaemic or normokalaemic) + dysmorphic features (micrognathia, clinodactyly, hypertelorism)[4]
  • Characteristic bidirectional VT on Holter monitoring closely resembles CPVT; triggered by adrenergic stimulation and hypokalaemia[4][5]
  • QTc prolongation is often modest relative to arrhythmia risk, the ECG alone significantly underestimates risk; standard LQTS risk stratification tools may not apply[4]
  • Recognition requires awareness of the full triad; the periodic paralysis or dysmorphic features may be the presenting complaint rather than arrhythmia[4]
Brugada Syndrome
SCN5A
~20–30% of Brugada syndrome (lower in Asian populations)
BrS
Brugada Syndrome
Ion Channel
Na⁺ channel (Nav1.5)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Truncating & Missense (LoF)Loss of Function
  • ~15–25% of Brugada syndrome; Nav1.5 LoF is the only established monogenic cause[12]
  • Mix of truncating and missense variants, both reducing peak INa; functional characterisation often required to confirm pathogenicity for individual missense variants[1][12]
  • Mechanism: reduced INa in RV epicardium unmasks Ito-driven action potential notch → heterogeneous repolarisation → type 1 Brugada ECG pattern (coved ST elevation ≥2 mm in ≥2 right precordial leads)[12]
  • Male predominance (8:1), testosterone amplifies Ito; fever directly suppresses Nav1.5 → fever-triggered VF is a classic presentation; nocturnal events are common[12][5]
  • Spontaneous type-1 pattern carries higher risk than drug-induced; quinidine (Ito blocker) suppresses VF episodes; ICD for survivors of cardiac arrest or spontaneous type-1 pattern with documented arrhythmia[12][5]
Catecholaminergic Polymorphic VT (CPVT)
RYR2
~55–65% of CPVT
CPVT
CPVT Type 1
Ca²⁺ Handling
SR Ca²⁺ release (RyR2)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (GoF)Gain of Function
  • Most common CPVT gene (~55–65%); predominantly missense gain-of-function variants[13]
  • Variants are clustered in four hotspot domains of RyR2 corresponding to inter-domain interaction surfaces (N-terminal, central, FKBP12.6-binding, and C-terminal)[13]
  • Mechanism: under adrenergic stimulation, GoF RyR2 opens at abnormally low luminal SR Ca²⁺ → spontaneous Ca²⁺ sparks → delayed afterdepolarisations (DADs) → triggered bidirectional VT[13]
  • Bidirectional VT on exercise testing is highly characteristic of CPVT; complete suppression of VT during exercise testing is the explicit treatment target[5][13]
  • Beta-blockers first-line (nadolol > propranolol; avoid metoprolol); flecainide as adjunctive RyR2 stabiliser; ICD after aborted cardiac arrest or breakthrough arrhythmia on maximal therapy[5]
CASQ2
~3–5% of CPVT
CPVT
CPVT Type 2
Ca²⁺ Handling
SR Ca²⁺ buffer (calsequestrin)
AR
Autosomal Recessive
Missense & Truncating (biallelic)Loss of Function
  • ~3–5% of CPVT; autosomal recessive, biallelic variants (homozygous or compound heterozygous) are required[13]
  • Mix of missense and truncating variants causing calsequestrin-2 loss-of-function or absent protein[13]
  • Mechanism: CASQ2 loss impairs luminal SR Ca²⁺ buffering → RyR2 activates at lower luminal Ca²⁺ thresholds, even at lower adrenergic stimulation levels → more sensitive triggered arrhythmia[13]
  • Earlier onset and often more severe than CPVT1; heterozygous carriers may have subclinical arrhythmia susceptibility on maximal exercise testing[5][13]
  • Management mirrors CPVT1; outcomes more guarded and combination therapy (nadolol + flecainide) often required from the outset[5]
Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH)
LDLR
~60–80% of FH; 1 in 250 (heterozygous)
FH
Familial Hypercholesterolaemia
Lipid Metabolism
LDL receptor
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Missense, Truncating & CNVLoss of Function
  • Most common FH gene (60–80% of cases); heterozygous FH affects ~1 in 250, one of the most prevalent monogenic conditions in any population[7]
  • Over 1,700 pathogenic variants: missense (~35%), null/truncating (~45%), and copy number variants/large deletions (~15%); variant class influences severity, null variants cause greater LDL elevation than partial LoF missense variants[7]
  • Mechanism: impaired hepatic LDL receptor function → reduced LDL-C clearance from birth[7]
  • Homozygous FH (LDL >13 mmol/L): accelerated ASCVD in childhood, aortic root stenosis and MI in the 2nd decade without aggressive treatment; requires lipoprotein apheresis ± lomitapide or evinacumab[7]
  • Standard of care: high-intensity statin + ezetimibe + PCSK9 inhibitor (evolocumab/alirocumab) from diagnosis; early treatment substantially reduces lifetime ASCVD risk[7]
APOB
~5% of FH
FH
Familial Defective ApoB
Lipid Metabolism
ApoB-100 (LDLR ligand)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (p.Arg3527Gln dominant)Loss of Function
  • ~5% of FH (familial defective ApoB); predominantly missense variants[7]
  • p.Arg3527Gln (mature protein: p.Arg3500Gln) is the dominant pathogenic variant worldwide and is one of the most common single FH-causing variants globally[7]
  • Mechanism: ApoB-100 is the LDLR ligand; this missense reduces receptor binding affinity ~20-fold, impairing LDL-C clearance despite a normal LDL receptor[7]
  • Phenotype generally milder than LDLR-FH: LDL typically 5–8 mmol/L, tendon xanthomata less prevalent, ASCVD risk somewhat lower for equivalent LDL levels[7]
  • Good statin response (LDLR is intact and upregulated by statins); PCSK9 inhibitors are effective; frequently underdiagnosed as polygenic hypercholesterolaemia[7]
PCSK9
~3–5% of FH
FH
Familial Hypercholesterolaemia
Lipid Metabolism
LDLR degradation (PCSK9)
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (GoF)Gain of Function
  • ~3–5% of FH; predominantly missense gain-of-function variants (e.g., p.Asp374Tyr, p.Ser127Arg)[7]
  • GoF PCSK9 promotes accelerated post-endocytic LDLR degradation → reduced hepatic LDL-C clearance; p.Asp374Tyr is among the most severe GoF variants[7]
  • Rare homozygous GoF PCSK9 variants cause a severe FH phenotype resembling homozygous LDLR-FH[7]
  • Naturally occurring LoF PCSK9 variants (p.Tyr142X, p.Leu253Phe) confer lifelong protection against ASCVD, directly informing development of PCSK9 inhibitors (evolocumab, alirocumab), one of the most successful genetics-to-therapeutics translations[7]
  • PCSK9 inhibitors are highly effective in PCSK9 GoF-FH since the elevated PCSK9 protein is the direct therapeutic target[7]
Aortopathy / Connective Tissue Disorders
FBN1
~75% of Marfan syndrome
Aorta
Marfan Syndrome
ECM / Matrix
Fibrillin-1 microfibril
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Missense (predominant) & TruncatingDominant Negative
  • ~75% of Marfan syndrome; over 3,000 pathogenic variants, one of the highest variant counts of any ICC gene[8]
  • Predominantly missense variants (~65%), particularly cysteine substitutions in EGF-like Ca²⁺-binding domains, these produce dominant negative fibrillin-1 microfibrils that disrupt extracellular matrix and dysregulate TGF-β signalling[8]
  • Truncating FBN1 variants (~20–25%) cause haploinsufficiency, often with a milder or neonatal Marfan phenotype; severity relates to variant class and domain location[8]
  • Aortic root aneurysm is the cardinal manifestation; prophylactic surgery typically at 4.5–5.0 cm (lower threshold with family history of dissection, growth >3 mm/yr, or pregnancy planning)[8]
  • Beta-blockers and ARBs (losartan) reduce haemodynamic wall stress and may slow aortic root growth rate[8]
TGFBR2
~50% of LDS; TGFBR1 ~30% more
Aorta
Loeys-Dietz Syndrome
ECM / Matrix
TGF-β receptor / signalling
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly MissenseDominant Negative
  • ~50% of Loeys-Dietz syndrome (TGFBR1 accounts for a further ~30%); predominantly missense variants in the kinase or ligand-binding domain[17]
  • Paradoxically, these dominant negative receptor variants increase (not decrease) TGF-β pathway signalling via compensatory upregulation, driving aortic wall remodelling[17]
  • More aggressive aortopathy than Marfan: aneurysms throughout the arterial tree (intracranial, descending, visceral arteries); prominent arterial tortuosity[17]
  • Intervention thresholds are lower: aortic root surgery at 3.5–4.0 cm in adults (vs. 4.5–5.0 cm for FBN1-Marfan); earlier intervention may be needed in children with rapid progression[17]
  • Diagnostic clues: bifid uvula or cleft palate, hypertelorism, craniosynostosis, facial features more pronounced than typical Marfan syndrome[17]
COL3A1
Rare; ~1 in 50,000–200,000
Aorta
Vascular Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome
ECM / Matrix
Type III collagen
AD
Autosomal Dominant
Predominantly Missense (Gly substitutions)Dominant Negative
  • Predominantly missense variants, glycine substitutions in Gly-X-Y repeats of the type III procollagen triple-helical domain are the most common and most severe variant class[18]
  • Glycine substitution prevents normal triple-helix folding → dominant negative heterotrimers disrupt vascular collagen matrix; truncating variants (NMD) cause milder haploinsufficiency phenotype[18]
  • Risk of spontaneous arterial, bowel, and uterine rupture, often without preceding detectable aneurysm; many events are fatal[18]
  • Invasive vascular procedures should be avoided unless life-saving; celiprolol (partial β2-agonist) reduces arterial events; branch vessel surgery preferred over open repair when intervention is unavoidable[18]
  • Median survival significantly reduced (~48 years); pregnancy carries high risk of uterine rupture and arterial dissection[18]
Storage, Syndromic & Mitochondrial Conditions
GLA
~0.5–1% of unexplained HCM; 1 in 40,000 males
Storage
Fabry Disease
Lysosomal
Lysosomal enzyme (α-Gal A)
XLD
X-Linked Dominant
Missense & Truncating (phenotype-linked)Loss of Function
  • X-linked dominant: hemizygous males are typically affected earlier and more severely, with classic Fabry presenting in childhood or adolescence and late-onset (cardiac) variants presenting in adulthood; heterozygous females can also be clinically affected, ranging from asymptomatic to severe depending on the X-inactivation pattern[14]
  • Variant type predicts phenotype: severe missense or truncating variants with <1% residual enzyme activity → classic multisystem Fabry; specific missense variants (e.g., p.Ala143Thr) with partial residual activity → cardiac (late-onset) variant[14]
  • Mechanism: α-galactosidase A deficiency → lysosomal Gb3 accumulation in cardiomyocytes, endothelium, kidneys, and neurons → progressive multi-organ damage[14]
  • CMR hallmark: inferolateral mid-wall LGE (basal segments) in a non-ischaemic pattern, this distinctive pattern should prompt Fabry screening in any unexplained HCM[14]
  • Disease-modifying therapy available: ERT (agalsidase-alfa or -beta) slows progression; migalastat (oral chaperone) effective for amenable missense variants (check amenability database)[14]
LAMP2
Rare; important HCM phenocopy
Storage
Danon Disease
Lysosomal
Lysosomal membrane / autophagy
XLD
X-Linked Dominant
Predominantly Truncating (frameshift, splice, nonsense)Loss of Function
  • X-linked dominant with marked sex difference: males develop a massive HCM phenotype (wall thickness 30–40 mm), Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, and progressive heart failure in the 2nd–3rd decade, early death without transplantation[15]
  • Predominantly truncating variants (frameshift, nonsense, splice-site) causing complete LAMP2 protein loss; females (one normal allele) develop later-onset and less severe cardiomyopathy[15]
  • Mechanism: LAMP2 deficiency impairs macroautophagy → accumulation of glycogen-containing autophagic vacuoles in cardiomyocytes and skeletal muscle[15]
  • Associated features: skeletal myopathy, intellectual disability (predominantly males), elevated CK; short PR interval/WPW on ECG in a young male with a massive HCM phenotype is a key diagnostic clue[15]
  • No disease-modifying therapy; early transplant evaluation is essential for affected males, ideally before irreversible multi-organ progression in the 3rd decade[15]
EMD
Rare; ~1 in 100,000 males
Storage
Emery-Dreifuss MD (X-linked)
Nuclear Envelope
Nuclear envelope (emerin)
XLR
X-Linked Recessive
Truncating & MissenseLoss of Function
  • X-linked recessive (emerin): males clinically affected; female carriers usually unaffected but may develop conduction disease or cardiomyopathy in middle age due to skewed X-inactivation[10]
  • Mix of truncating (~60%) and missense (~40%) variants; truncating variants tend to produce more severe disease through complete emerin loss[10]
  • Classic triad (in order of appearance): early joint contractures (elbow, Achilles, cervical spine) → humeroperoneal muscle wasting → cardiac conduction disease[10]
  • Cardiac manifestations: atrial standstill, complete AV block, AF, SCD risk is significant even without LV systolic dysfunction; pacemaker and ICD are commonly required[9][10]
  • LMNA mutations (autosomal dominant EDMD) cause an identical cardiac phenotype, genetic testing is essential to distinguish X-linked from AD forms, as family implications differ fundamentally[10]
MT-TL1
~1 in 5,000–10,000
Storage
Mitochondrial Cardiomyopathy / MELAS
Mitochondria
Mitochondrial tRNA
Mit
Mitochondrial
Point mutation (m.3243A>G)Loss of Function
  • m.3243A>G in mitochondrial tRNA-Leu(UUR) is the most prevalent mitochondrial disease variant; maternally inherited (no paternal transmission)[16]
  • A specific mtDNA point mutation, impairs mitochondrial tRNA aminoacylation, globally reducing mitochondrial protein synthesis in cells with high energy demand; not a conventional nuclear missense variant[16]
  • Heteroplasmy (proportion of mutant mitochondria in a given tissue) determines phenotypic severity: low levels → isolated diabetes/deafness; high levels → full MELAS with stroke-like episodes, cardiomyopathy, lactic acidosis[16]
  • Cardiac phenotype (HCM > DCM) may be the dominant initial manifestation, multisystem features (diabetes, sensorineural deafness, maternal family history) should be actively sought and may prompt the diagnosis[16]
  • Avoid metformin (inhibits mitochondrial complex I); blood heteroplasmy levels may underestimate cardiac and muscle heteroplasmy; serial cardiac surveillance is essential; coenzyme Q10 used empirically[16]

References & Review Date

Last reviewed: May 2026

  1. Walsh R, et al. Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples. Genet Med. 2017;19(2):192–203. DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.90
  2. Richard P, et al. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: distribution of disease genes, spectrum of mutations, and implications for a molecular diagnosis strategy. Circulation. 2003;107(17):2227–2232. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000066323.15244.54
  3. Herman DS, et al. Truncations of titin causing dilated cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(7):619–628. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110186
  4. Schwartz PJ, et al. Inherited cardiac arrhythmias. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):58. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-0188-7
  5. Priori SG, et al. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(41):2793–2867. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv316
  6. Corrado D, et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy: the Padua criteria. Int J Cardiol. 2020;319:106–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.06.005
  7. Nordestgaard BG, et al. Familial hypercholesterolaemia is underdiagnosed and undertreated in the general population. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(45):3478–3490. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht273
  8. Loeys BL, et al. The revised Ghent nosology for the Marfan syndrome. J Med Genet. 2010;47(7):476–485. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2009.072785
  9. Arbelo E, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiomyopathies. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(37):3503–3626. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad194
  10. Hershberger RE, Hedges DJ, Morales A. Dilated cardiomyopathy: the complexity of a diverse genetic architecture. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2013;10(9):531–547. DOI: 10.1038/nrcardio.2013.105
  11. van der Zwaag PA, et al. Phospholamban R14del mutation in patients diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy or arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(10):1241–1248. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr466
  12. Narasimhan B, et al. Brugada syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2025;11(1):38. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-025-00622-5
  13. Priori SG, et al. Mutations in the cardiac ryanodine receptor gene (hRyR2) underlie catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia. Circulation. 2001;103(2):196–200. DOI: 10.1161/01.CIR.103.2.196
  14. Germain DP. Fabry disease. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2010;5:30. DOI: 10.1186/1750-1172-5-30
  15. Nishino I, et al. Primary LAMP-2 deficiency causes X-linked vacuolar cardiomyopathy and myopathy (Danon disease). Nature. 2000;406(6798):906–910. DOI: 10.1038/35022604
  16. El-Hattab AW, et al. MELAS syndrome: clinical manifestations, pathogenesis, and treatment options. Mol Genet Metab. 2015;116(1–2):4–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2015.06.004
  17. Loeys BL, et al. A syndrome of altered cardiovascular, craniofacial, neurocognitive and skeletal development caused by mutations in TGFBR1 or TGFBR2. Nat Genet. 2005;37(3):275–281. DOI: 10.1038/ng1511
  18. Byers PH, et al. Diagnosis, natural history, and management in vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2017;175(1):40–47. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31553

Genetics Glossary

A single reference glossary of commonly used molecular genetics, inheritance, and laboratory terms.

Variant & Mutation Types
Copy Number Variant (CNV)Large-scale deletion or duplication
Structural genomic variants involving deletion or duplication of segments typically >1 kb, affecting one or more exons or entire genes. CNVs account for ~15% of pathogenic LDLR variants in FH and are not reliably detected by standard Sanger sequencing, MLPA or whole-genome sequencing is required.
Example: LDLR exon 1–6 deletion → complete loss of LDL receptor in affected exons → severe FH phenotype.
Frameshift VariantReading frame disrupted by indel
Insertion or deletion of a number of nucleotides not divisible by three, shifting the downstream reading frame. Every codon after the indel is altered, producing a completely different amino acid sequence and almost always a premature stop codon, the resulting transcript typically undergoes NMD. One of the most common truncating variant types in ICC genes.
Example: MYBPC3 c.2373insG, single cytosine insertion shifts the reading frame → premature stop → NMD → haploinsufficiency → HCM.
Missense Variant (SNP)Single amino acid substitution
A single nucleotide change alters one codon, substituting a different amino acid. The resultant protein is full-length but structurally or functionally abnormal. Pathogenicity depends on the amino acid position and physicochemical change introduced.
Example: MYH7 p.Arg403Gln, glutamine substitution at the myosin motor domain disrupts cross-bridge cycling in HCM.
Nonsense Variant (Stop-Gain)Single nucleotide change creates stop codon
A single nucleotide substitution changes a coding codon to a premature stop codon (UAA, UAG, or UGA). If located >50–55 nt upstream of the last exon-exon junction, the resulting mRNA is targeted by NMD. If located near the C-terminus or in the last exon, the truncated protein may escape NMD and accumulate, potentially with dominant negative properties.
Example: PKP2 p.Arg79*, early stop codon → NMD → haploinsufficiency of plakophilin-2 → desmosomal failure → ARVC.
Repeat ExpansionPathological tandem repeat enlargement
Abnormal expansion of repetitive DNA sequences beyond a pathological threshold. While not represented among the core ICC genes in this table, repeat expansions underlie Friedreich's ataxia (FXN GAA repeat → a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy phenotype + peripheral neuropathy) and myotonic dystrophy (DMPK CTG repeat → conduction disease and cardiomyopathy).
Example: FXN intron 1 GAA expansion >66 repeats → frataxin deficiency → HCM phenotype + progressive ataxia.
Splice-site VariantDisruption of exon–intron boundary signals
Variants at the canonical splice donor (GT) or acceptor (AG) dinucleotides, or within nearby intronic/exonic splicing regulatory sequences. Consequences range from exon skipping, intron retention, or activation of a cryptic splice site, all producing an aberrant mRNA. Most canonical splice-site variants result in a truncated protein and NMD, but exon-skipping variants may produce in-frame products with partial function.
Example: TTN splice-site variants in A-band exons with high PSI are among the most prevalent DCM variants; exon skipping produces non-functional titin isoforms.
Truncating VariantFrameshift, nonsense, or essential splice-site
Introduces a premature termination codon via frameshift insertion/deletion, nonsense substitution, or disruption of an essential splice site. This produces a shortened protein or triggers nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD), which degrades the aberrant transcript before translation. NMD is the predominant outcome, resulting in reduced protein output (haploinsufficiency).
Example: MYBPC3 frameshift → NMD → ~50% reduction in cMyBP-C → haploinsufficiency → HCM.
Molecular Mechanisms
Altered RNA SplicingDysregulation of transcript isoform production
Some pathogenic variants do not change the protein sequence directly but instead disrupt the normal regulation of pre-mRNA splicing, altering which exons are included in the final transcript. This produces abnormal isoform ratios with downstream functional consequences. A distinct category from splice-site variants, the causal variant may be in the coding region yet its effect is entirely on splicing.
Example: RBM20 RSRSP-domain missense variants prevent correct titin mRNA splicing → giant, non-compliant titin isoforms → impaired sarcomere mechanics in DCM.
Dominant Negative EffectMutant protein sabotages wild-type function
The abnormal protein actively interferes with the function of the normal wild-type protein produced from the remaining allele. Mechanistically more damaging than haploinsufficiency because total functional protein falls below 50%. Common in proteins forming multi-subunit complexes, the mutant subunit "poisons" the assembly.
Example: MYH7 missense variants incorporate into myosin thick filaments as "poison peptides", impairing cross-bridge cycling disproportionately.
Gain of Function (GoF)Novel or enhanced pathological activity
The variant confers a new or amplified activity not present in the wild-type protein. In ion channel diseases, GoF commonly means the channel fails to fully inactivate, generating persistent current that prolongs the action potential or causes abnormal spontaneous depolarisations.
Example: SCN5A GoF → persistent late INa → prolonged QT → LQT3; RYR2 GoF → abnormal SR Ca²⁺ release at rest → triggered VT in CPVT.
HaploinsufficiencyOne functional copy is insufficient
When a single functional copy of a gene cannot produce sufficient protein for normal cellular function, disease results. Typical of dosage-sensitive structural proteins. Most commonly caused by truncating variants where the mutant allele undergoes NMD, leaving only ~50% protein output from the remaining wild-type allele.
Example: MYBPC3, TTN, PKP2, DSP, LMNA, all cause disease primarily through haploinsufficiency.
Increased Ca²⁺ SensitivityThin filament hyperactivation at rest
A molecular mechanism specific to thin filament HCM variants. Normally, troponin acts as an "off switch" that keeps the thin filament inactive during diastole in the absence of calcium. Pathogenic variants in TNNT2, TNNI3, and TPM1 shift this equilibrium toward the "on" state, the sarcomere remains partially active even at low Ca²⁺, causing incomplete relaxation, energy wastage, and diastolic dysfunction, even with minimal or no hypertrophy.
Example: TNNT2 variants cause disproportionate SCD risk with near-normal wall thickness because hyperactivated sarcomeres consume ATP excessively, causing cardiomyocyte death without gross hypertrophy.
Loss of Function (LoF)Reduced or absent normal protein activity
A broad mechanistic category encompassing any variant that reduces or abolishes the normal biological activity of a protein, through reduced expression (haploinsufficiency), impaired folding, defective protein trafficking, or disruption of the active/binding site. Includes both truncating and missense variants.
Example: KCNQ1 LoF reduces IKs (slow delayed rectifier) current → prolonged action potential → LQT1.
Nonsense-Mediated Decay (NMD)mRNA quality-control surveillance
A cellular pathway that recognises and degrades mRNA containing a premature termination codon (PTC) located >50–55 nucleotides upstream of the last exon-exon junction. NMD prevents translation of truncated proteins and is a key phenotype modifier, variants that escape NMD may produce toxic truncated peptides with dominant negative properties.
Relevant to: MYBPC3, TTN, PKP2, DSP, NMD of the mutant transcript is the primary mechanism driving haploinsufficiency in these genes.
Protein Trafficking DefectFailure to reach the cell membrane
Missense variants may produce a structurally near-normal protein that is incorrectly folded and retained in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) rather than being trafficked to the cell surface. The protein is then degraded, reducing functional surface expression. This is a major mechanism of LoF for KCNH2 variants in LQT2.
Example: Many KCNH2 missense variants in LQT2 cause ER retention of the hERG channel, functional consequence is LoF despite a structurally near-complete protein.
Triggered Activity (DADs)Spontaneous depolarisations from Ca²⁺ overload
Delayed afterdepolarisations (DADs) are abnormal depolarisation events that occur during phase 4 of the action potential, driven by spontaneous release of calcium from the sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR). If the DAD amplitude is sufficient to reach the action potential threshold, a triggered beat is initiated outside the normal conduction cycle, the cellular mechanism of ventricular arrhythmias in CPVT and PLN cardiomyopathy.
Example: RYR2 GoF variants → spontaneous SR Ca²⁺ sparks during adrenergic stimulation → DADs → triggered bidirectional VT, the characteristic arrhythmia of CPVT1.
Inheritance & Population Genetics
Allelic HeterogeneityDifferent variants cause different phenotypes
When different variants within the same gene produce distinct clinical phenotypes, different diseases, different severities, or even opposite functional mechanisms. Allelic heterogeneity is common in ICC genes and is clinically relevant because it means gene identification alone does not fully determine prognosis.
Example: SCN5A, GoF missense variants → LQT3; LoF variants → Brugada syndrome; severe LoF → DCM with conduction disease. Same gene, opposite mechanisms.
Compound HeterozygosityTwo different variants in the same gene
In autosomal recessive disease, compound heterozygosity describes carrying two distinct pathogenic variants in the same gene, one on each chromosome, rather than the same variant on both chromosomes (homozygosity). Each parent carries one variant and is typically unaffected. Together the two variants produce severely reduced or absent protein function.
Example: CASQ2 compound heterozygous variants cause CPVT2 with earlier onset than heterozygous carrier parents.
De Novo VariantNew mutation absent in both parents
A pathogenic variant arising for the first time in the proband, not inherited from either parent. De novo variants are identified in ~4–5% of ICC cases, particularly in severe early-onset presentations without a family history. Their identification is clinically important: the proband's siblings and parents are at very low risk (only relevant if gonadal mosaicism is possible), but offspring have a 50% transmission risk.
Example: Severe neonatal Marfan syndrome is frequently caused by de novo FBN1 variants, the absence of affected parents does not exclude a genetic aetiology.
Digenic InheritanceVariants in two genes required for disease
A pattern where pathogenic variants in two distinct genes, each individually insufficient to cause severe disease, combine to produce a more severe phenotype or clinical disease. Seen particularly in ARVC, where compound heterozygosity across two desmosomal genes (e.g., PKP2 + DSG2) amplifies disease penetrance and severity beyond either variant alone.
Example: ARVC patients carrying variants in both PKP2 and DSP have significantly higher penetrance, earlier onset, and greater arrhythmia burden than carriers of a single desmosomal variant.
Founder VariantPopulation-enriched pathogenic allele
A pathogenic variant present at relatively high frequency in a specific population due to descent from a common ancestor who carried it (founder effect). Important for population-specific diagnostic panels, targeted assays for founder variants can provide efficient first-line screening before full gene sequencing.
Example: MYBPC3 c.2373insG (~4% of HCM in South Asians); PLN p.Arg14del (Dutch/N. European DCM); JUP c.2157del2 (Greek island ARVC).
PenetranceProportion of carriers who develop disease
The probability that a variant carrier will manifest clinical disease. Complete penetrance means virtually all carriers are affected. Incomplete penetrance is common in ICCs, some pathogenic variant carriers remain phenotype-negative throughout life. Penetrance is age-dependent and modified by sex, physical activity, and modifier genes.
Example: MYBPC3 HCM variants have strongly age-related penetrance, many carriers are unaffected until the 4th–5th decade; TTN DCM variants have ~40% penetrance in males.
PhasingDetermining which parental chromosome a variant is on
Establishing whether a variant is on the maternally or paternally inherited copy of a gene. Critical when two variants are found in the same gene: in trans (one on each chromosome = biallelic = AR disease) versus in cis (both on same chromosome = monoallelic).
ProbandIndex case in a family
The first affected individual in a family to undergo genetic testing. Results from the proband guide which specific variant is used in subsequent cascade testing of relatives.
SegregationVariant co-occurrence with disease in a family
The pattern of a variant being present in affected family members and absent from unaffected ones. Each additional affected relative carrying the variant increases the LOD score, building evidence towards LP reclassification for a VUS.
Variable ExpressivitySame variant, different severity
Even when a pathogenic variant is penetrant, the severity and features of the phenotype vary considerably between carriers of the same variant, including within the same family. Modifier genes, lifestyle (e.g., exercise load), sex hormones, and epigenetic factors all contribute to expressivity.
Example: FBN1 Marfan variants, one family member may have severe aortic root aneurysm while another has only ectopia lentis with a normal aorta.
X-inactivation (Lyonisation)Random silencing of one X in female cells
Early in female embryogenesis, each somatic cell randomly inactivates one of its two X chromosomes, creating a mosaic in which approximately half the cells express each parental allele. In X-linked dominant disease, if the pathogenic X is preferentially silenced (skewed inactivation), a female carrier may remain clinically unaffected; if it is preferentially expressed, she may develop a phenotype approaching that of an affected male.
Example: Female LAMP2 carriers who happen to express the mutant allele predominantly may develop significant cardiomyopathy; those with skewed inactivation favouring the wild-type allele remain phenotype-negative into middle age.
X-linked InheritanceGene located on the X chromosome
X-linked dominant (XLD): one pathogenic allele is sufficient to cause disease in both males and females, but males typically have more severe disease as they lack a second X chromosome to buffer the effect. X-linked recessive (XLR): females are usually unaffected carriers; hemizygous males (one X allele) are clinically affected. Pedigree patterns show no male-to-male transmission in either form.
Example: GLA (Fabry) and LAMP2 (Danon) → XLD, both sexes affected, males severely; EMD (Emery-Dreifuss) → XLR, only males clinically affected.
Mitochondrial Genetics
HeteroplasmyMitochondrial variant allele fraction
Each cell contains hundreds of mitochondria, each with multiple mtDNA copies. Heteroplasmy describes the proportion of mitochondria carrying the pathogenic variant. Higher heteroplasmy generally correlates with greater disease severity. Heteroplasmy levels differ between tissues (blood may underestimate muscle/cardiac load) and can shift across generations.
Example: m.3243A>G, blood heteroplasmy >60% correlates with cardiac and neurological involvement in MELAS; lower levels may cause only diabetes or deafness.
HomoplasmyAll mitochondria carry the same mtDNA
When all copies of mtDNA within a cell or tissue carry the same sequence, either entirely wild-type (normal) or entirely the pathogenic variant. Homoplasmy for a pathogenic variant generally produces more severe, fully penetrant disease than heteroplasmy. Some mtDNA variants causing cardiomyopathy can be homoplasmic, as they may be relatively tolerated in tissues outside the heart and muscle.
Example: Certain MT-TL1 and MT-ATP6 variants associated with a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy phenotype are transmitted and expressed homoplasmatically, resulting in predictable and fully penetrant cardiac involvement.
Maternal InheritanceMitochondrial DNA is maternally transmitted
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited exclusively through the maternal lineage, sperm mitochondria are degraded after fertilisation. All children of an affected mother are at risk of inheriting the variant; no children of an affected father are at risk. Pedigree analysis should identify strictly maternal transmission when a mitochondrial disorder is suspected.
Example: m.3243A>G is transmitted by affected mothers to all offspring; an affected father does not transmit, paternal transmission effectively rules out an mtDNA disorder.
Threshold EffectMinimum heteroplasmy required for disease
Mitochondrial disease only manifests once the proportion of pathogenic mtDNA exceeds a tissue-specific threshold, below which residual wild-type mitochondria provide sufficient oxidative phosphorylation capacity to maintain function. Thresholds vary by tissue: cardiac and skeletal muscle have higher energy demands and lower thresholds than other organs. This explains why some carriers with the same variant remain entirely asymptomatic while others develop severe multisystem disease.
Example: m.3243A>G blood heteroplasmy of 10–30% may cause only diabetes or deafness; levels above ~60–70% in affected tissues typically produce full MELAS with cardiomyopathy and stroke-like episodes.
Sequencing & Laboratory Concepts
Allele-Specific ExpressionImbalanced expression from one parental allele
When one allele of a gene is expressed at significantly lower levels than the other, due to a regulatory or splicing variant on that allele. Detectable by RNA-seq; can support pathogenicity reclassification of a VUS affecting transcription or splicing efficiency.
AneuploidyAbnormal chromosome number
Presence of an abnormal number of chromosomes. ICC-relevant examples: trisomy 21 / Down syndrome (AVSD, DCM), Turner syndrome 45,X (bicuspid aortic valve, aortic coarctation), Klinefelter 47,XXY (DCM).
Coverage / Sequencing DepthTimes each base is read
The average number of times each DNA base is sequenced. Higher depth (~100× for WES, ~30–50× for WGS) increases confidence in variant calls and reduces false negatives.
Cryptic ExonNormally silent intronic sequence included in mRNA
An intronic sequence aberrantly included in mature mRNA when a nearby variant activates a cryptic splice site. Typically creates a frameshift or premature stop codon. Invisible to standard WES/WGS without RNA-seq functional follow-up.
CytogeneticsStudy of chromosomes and chromosome-scale changes
Analysis of chromosome number and large-scale structural organisation. Encompasses karyotyping (microscopy), FISH (fluorescent probe hybridisation), and chromosomal microarray (genome-wide copy number). Used for syndromic and congenital presentations.
Diagnostic YieldProportion receiving a genetic diagnosis
The proportion of tested individuals in whom a P/LP variant is identified. Varies by condition: ~60% HCM, ~30–40% DCM, ~50–60% LQTS, ~50% ARVC. Lower yields reflect incomplete knowledge of causative genes.
ExomeProtein-coding portion of the genome
The ~1–2% of the genome that encodes proteins, comprising ~20,000 genes. Whole exome sequencing (WES) captures and sequences this region to ~100× depth.
NGS (Next-Generation Sequencing)High-throughput DNA sequencing
Produces millions of short DNA reads simultaneously, enabling rapid sequencing of many genes at once. The technology underlying gene panels, WES, and WGS.
ROH (Regions of Homozygosity)Identical alleles on both chromosomes
Stretches of identical alleles on both chromosome copies, detected by SNP microarray. Extensive ROH indicates consanguinity; isolated ROH can indicate uniparental disomy (UPD), relevant for imprinting disorders affecting the heart.
TranscriptomeComplete RNA output of a cell
The full set of RNA molecules expressed by a cell or tissue. Tissue-specific, cardiac genes (TTN, PKP2, SCN5A) may not be expressed in blood, limiting RNA-seq utility to biopsy samples in ICC.
VCF (Variant Call Format)Bioinformatic output file
Standard file listing all differences between a patient's DNA and the reference genome after sequencing analysis. Clinical filtering narrows hundreds of thousands of raw variants to a small number of candidates.
Variant Classification (ACMG)
ACMG ClassificationFive-tier variant classification framework
Standard framework used by clinical laboratories: Pathogenic (P), Likely Pathogenic (LP), VUS, Likely Benign (LB), Benign (B). Based on population frequency, functional data, segregation, and computational evidence criteria.
VUS (Variant of Uncertain Significance)Inconclusive genetic finding
A variant with insufficient evidence to classify as pathogenic or benign. Common with WES/WGS. Should not alone drive major clinical decisions; requires ongoing evidence accumulation and review.