Table 1
Comparison of Traditional and New Nomenclature Plans
| Characteristic | Traditional HUGO Plan | MDS Task Force Plan |
|---|---|---|
| Useful for linkage studies | Yes | No; it requires identification of gene before a label is assigned |
| Inclusive of all dystonias | Poor; large numbers of dystonias are missing and will never be added | Modest; large numbers of dystonias are still not assigned labels |
| Identifies a single unique disorder | No | Yes |
| Label is stable over time | Yes; except for errors | No, prefix will evolve as new information expands the phenotype |
| Clear process for assigning labels | Yes; assigned by HUGO | No; unclear authority for assignment |
| Simple and easy to use | Yes | No; requires substantial expertise in neurogenetics |
| Accommodates multiple movement phenotypes | No | Yes |
| Accommodates non-movement phenotypes | No | No |
| Likely to be adopted by non-movement fields | Yes; already in use across all of medicine | No; relevant only for movement field |
| Accurately reflects the dominant movement disorder phenotype | No; not all DYT labels correspond to disorders where dystonia is the dominant feature | Partly; based on order of prefix listing |
| Useful clinical system for classifying dystonias into meaningful groups | No; this is a list, not a classification system | Partly; depending on prefix |
| Useful biological system for classifying dystonias into meaningful groups | No; this is a list, not a classification system | No; provides gene name only |
[i] Abbreviations: HUGO, the Human Genome Organization; MDS, Movement Disorders Society.