Copy number variant and runs of homozygosity detection by microarrays enabled more precise molecular diagnoses in 11,020 clinical exome cases.
Dual molecular diagnoses
Exome sequencing
Exonic CNV in AR disorders
Microarray
ROH
Structural variation
Uniparental disomy
Journal
Genome medicine
ISSN: 1756-994X
Titre abrégé: Genome Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101475844
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 05 2019
17 05 2019
Historique:
received:
18
09
2018
accepted:
09
04
2019
entrez:
19
5
2019
pubmed:
19
5
2019
medline:
28
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Exome sequencing (ES) has been successfully applied in clinical detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small indels. However, identification of copy number variants (CNVs) using ES data remains challenging. The purpose of this study is to understand the contribution of CNVs and copy neutral runs of homozygosity (ROH) in molecular diagnosis of patients referred for ES. In a cohort of 11,020 consecutive ES patients, an Illumina SNP array analysis interrogating mostly coding SNPs was performed as a quality control (QC) measurement and for CNV/ROH detection. Among these patients, clinical chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was performed at Baylor Genetics (BG) on 3229 patients, either before, concurrently, or after ES. We retrospectively analyzed the findings from CMA and the QC array. The QC array can detect ~ 70% of pathogenic/likely pathogenic CNVs (PCNVs) detectable by CMA. Out of the 11,020 ES cases, the QC array identified PCNVs in 327 patients and uniparental disomy (UPD) disorder-related ROH in 10 patients. The overall PCNV/UPD detection rate was 5.9% in the 3229 ES patients who also had CMA at BG; PCNV/UPD detection rate was higher in concurrent ES and CMA than in ES with prior CMA (7.2% vs 4.6%). The PCNVs/UPD contributed to the molecular diagnoses in 17.4% (189/1089) of molecularly diagnosed ES cases with CMA and were estimated to contribute in 10.6% of all molecularly diagnosed ES cases. Dual diagnoses with both PCNVs and SNVs were detected in 38 patients. PCNVs affecting single recessive disorder genes in a compound heterozygous state with SNVs were detected in 4 patients, and homozygous deletions (mostly exonic deletions) were detected in 17 patients. A higher PCNV detection rate was observed for patients with syndromic phenotypes and/or cardiovascular abnormalities. Our clinical genomics study demonstrates that detection of PCNV/UPD through the QC array or CMA increases ES diagnostic rate, provides more precise molecular diagnosis for dominant as well as recessive traits, and enables more complete genetic diagnoses in patients with dual or multiple molecular diagnoses. Concurrent ES and CMA using an array with exonic coverage for disease genes enables most effective detection of both CNVs and SNVs and therefore is recommended especially in time-sensitive clinical situations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Exome sequencing (ES) has been successfully applied in clinical detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small indels. However, identification of copy number variants (CNVs) using ES data remains challenging. The purpose of this study is to understand the contribution of CNVs and copy neutral runs of homozygosity (ROH) in molecular diagnosis of patients referred for ES.
METHODS
In a cohort of 11,020 consecutive ES patients, an Illumina SNP array analysis interrogating mostly coding SNPs was performed as a quality control (QC) measurement and for CNV/ROH detection. Among these patients, clinical chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was performed at Baylor Genetics (BG) on 3229 patients, either before, concurrently, or after ES. We retrospectively analyzed the findings from CMA and the QC array.
RESULTS
The QC array can detect ~ 70% of pathogenic/likely pathogenic CNVs (PCNVs) detectable by CMA. Out of the 11,020 ES cases, the QC array identified PCNVs in 327 patients and uniparental disomy (UPD) disorder-related ROH in 10 patients. The overall PCNV/UPD detection rate was 5.9% in the 3229 ES patients who also had CMA at BG; PCNV/UPD detection rate was higher in concurrent ES and CMA than in ES with prior CMA (7.2% vs 4.6%). The PCNVs/UPD contributed to the molecular diagnoses in 17.4% (189/1089) of molecularly diagnosed ES cases with CMA and were estimated to contribute in 10.6% of all molecularly diagnosed ES cases. Dual diagnoses with both PCNVs and SNVs were detected in 38 patients. PCNVs affecting single recessive disorder genes in a compound heterozygous state with SNVs were detected in 4 patients, and homozygous deletions (mostly exonic deletions) were detected in 17 patients. A higher PCNV detection rate was observed for patients with syndromic phenotypes and/or cardiovascular abnormalities.
CONCLUSIONS
Our clinical genomics study demonstrates that detection of PCNV/UPD through the QC array or CMA increases ES diagnostic rate, provides more precise molecular diagnosis for dominant as well as recessive traits, and enables more complete genetic diagnoses in patients with dual or multiple molecular diagnoses. Concurrent ES and CMA using an array with exonic coverage for disease genes enables most effective detection of both CNVs and SNVs and therefore is recommended especially in time-sensitive clinical situations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31101064
doi: 10.1186/s13073-019-0639-5
pii: 10.1186/s13073-019-0639-5
pmc: PMC6525387
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
30Subventions
Organisme : NHGRI NIH HHS
ID : K08 HG008986
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R35 NS105078
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHGRI NIH HHS
ID : UM1 HG006542
Pays : United States
Organisme : Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
ID : R35NS105078
Pays : International
Références
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Oct 6;99(4):831-845
pubmed: 27640307
Am J Med Genet A. 2017 Sep;173(9):2451-2455
pubmed: 28631899
Genome Res. 2013 Sep;23(9):1383-94
pubmed: 23685542
Am J Med Genet A. 2018 May;176(5):1175-1179
pubmed: 29341437
JAMA. 2014 Nov 12;312(18):1870-9
pubmed: 25326635
Am J Med Genet A. 2013 Nov;161A(11):2846-54
pubmed: 24123946
Genet Med. 2015 Aug;17(8):623-9
pubmed: 25356966
Genom Data. 2014 Dec;2:144-146
pubmed: 26258046
Hum Genet. 2016 Jun;135(6):591-601
pubmed: 27221143
Annu Rev Med. 2012;63:35-61
pubmed: 22248320
Eur J Hum Genet. 2014 Jan;22(1):79-87
pubmed: 23695279
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 May 31;18(1):286
pubmed: 28569140
JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Dec 4;171(12):e173438
pubmed: 28973083
Genet Med. 2017 Jun;19(6):667-675
pubmed: 28574513
JAMA. 2015 Sep 1;314(9):895-903
pubmed: 26325558
Genome Med. 2016 Aug 08;8(1):82
pubmed: 27503473
Eur J Med Genet. 2017 Dec;60(12):667-674
pubmed: 28882788
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2015 Jun;15(6):749-60
pubmed: 25959410
Annu Rev Med. 2010;61:437-55
pubmed: 20059347
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Feb 4;98(2):347-57
pubmed: 26805781
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Feb 28;45(4):1633-1648
pubmed: 27980096
Genet Med. 2018 Dec;20(12):1528-1537
pubmed: 29790871
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016 Oct;138(4):1142-1151.e2
pubmed: 27484032
Nat Rev Genet. 2016 Apr;17(4):224-38
pubmed: 26924765
Clin Genet. 2018 Mar;93(3):439-449
pubmed: 28950406
Genet Med. 2014 May;16(5):386-394
pubmed: 24136616
Hum Mutat. 2010 Dec;31(12):1326-42
pubmed: 20848651
Genome Med. 2017 Sep 21;9(1):83
pubmed: 28934986
BMC Genomics. 2014 Dec 17;15:1127
pubmed: 25516202
Hum Mutat. 2017 Feb;38(2):180-192
pubmed: 27862604
Trends Genet. 1998 Oct;14(10):417-22
pubmed: 9820031
Genet Med. 2016 Sep;18(9):940-8
pubmed: 26820068
Am J Hum Genet. 2010 May 14;86(5):749-64
pubmed: 20466091
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 5;376(1):21-31
pubmed: 27959697
Lancet. 2011 Feb 12;377(9765):555-6
pubmed: 21315943
Am J Med Genet A. 2016 Aug;170(8):2206-11
pubmed: 27250922
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3284534
pubmed: 27975050
Genet Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;7(6):422-32
pubmed: 16024975
Nat Genet. 2011 Aug 14;43(9):838-46
pubmed: 21841781
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2015;15(8):1023-32
pubmed: 26088785
Genet Med. 2011 Jul;13(7):680-5
pubmed: 21681106
Hum Genet. 2013 Jul;132(7):825-41
pubmed: 23552953
N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 17;369(16):1502-11
pubmed: 24088041
Clin Exp Immunol. 2014 Dec;178(3):459-69
pubmed: 25046553
Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2014;1:176-183
pubmed: 25419514
Genet Med. 2016 May;18(5):443-51
pubmed: 26378787