Diagnostic yield of exome and genome sequencing after non-diagnostic multi-gene panels in patients with single-system diseases.
Diagnostic yield
Exome
Gene panels
Genetic testing
Genome
Rare diseases
Journal
Orphanet journal of rare diseases
ISSN: 1750-1172
Titre abrégé: Orphanet J Rare Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101266602
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 May 2024
24 May 2024
Historique:
received:
30
01
2024
accepted:
09
05
2024
medline:
25
5
2024
pubmed:
25
5
2024
entrez:
24
5
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Though next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests like exome sequencing (ES), genome sequencing (GS), and panels derived from exome and genome data (EGBP) are effective for rare diseases, the ideal diagnostic approach is debated. Limited research has explored reanalyzing raw ES and GS data post-negative EGBP results for diagnostics. We analyzed complete ES/GS raw sequencing data from Mayo Clinic's Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) patients to assess whether supplementary findings could augment diagnostic yield. ES data from 80 patients (59 adults) and GS data from 20 patients (10 adults), averaging 43 years in age, were analyzed. Most patients had renal (n=44) and auto-inflammatory (n=29) phenotypes. Ninety-six cases had negative findings and in four cases additional genetic variants were found, including a variant related to a recently described disease (RRAGD-related hypomagnesemia), a variant missed due to discordant inheritance pattern (COL4A3), a variant with high allelic frequency (NPHS2) in the general population, and a variant associated with an initially untargeted phenotype (HNF1A). ES and GS show diagnostic yields comparable to EGBP for single-system diseases. However, EGBP's limitations in detecting new disease-associated genes underscore the necessity for periodic updates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Though next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests like exome sequencing (ES), genome sequencing (GS), and panels derived from exome and genome data (EGBP) are effective for rare diseases, the ideal diagnostic approach is debated. Limited research has explored reanalyzing raw ES and GS data post-negative EGBP results for diagnostics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We analyzed complete ES/GS raw sequencing data from Mayo Clinic's Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) patients to assess whether supplementary findings could augment diagnostic yield. ES data from 80 patients (59 adults) and GS data from 20 patients (10 adults), averaging 43 years in age, were analyzed. Most patients had renal (n=44) and auto-inflammatory (n=29) phenotypes. Ninety-six cases had negative findings and in four cases additional genetic variants were found, including a variant related to a recently described disease (RRAGD-related hypomagnesemia), a variant missed due to discordant inheritance pattern (COL4A3), a variant with high allelic frequency (NPHS2) in the general population, and a variant associated with an initially untargeted phenotype (HNF1A).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
ES and GS show diagnostic yields comparable to EGBP for single-system diseases. However, EGBP's limitations in detecting new disease-associated genes underscore the necessity for periodic updates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38790019
doi: 10.1186/s13023-024-03213-x
pii: 10.1186/s13023-024-03213-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
216Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Adams DR, Eng CM. Next-Generation Sequencing to Diagnose Suspected Genetic Disorders. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(14):1353–62.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1711801
pubmed: 30281996
Sun Y, Ruivenkamp CAL, Hoffer MJV, Vrijenhoek T, Kriek M, van Asperen CJ, et al. Next-generation diagnostics: gene panel, exome, or whole genome? Hum Mutat. 2015;36(6):648–55.
doi: 10.1002/humu.22783
pubmed: 25772376
Saudi Mendeliome Group. Comprehensive gene panels provide advantages over clinical exome sequencing for Mendelian diseases. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):134.
doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0693-2
pmcid: 4499193
Niazi R, Gonzalez MA, Balciuniene J, Evans P, Sarmady M, AbouTayoun AN. The Development and Validation of Clinical Exome-Based Panels Using ExomeSlicer: Considerations and Proof of Concept Using an Epilepsy Panel. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20(5):643–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.05.003
pubmed: 29936260
Wang Q, Shashikant CS, Jensen M, Altman NS, Girirajan S. Novel metrics to measure coverage in whole exome sequencing datasets reveal local and global non-uniformity. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):885.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01005-x
pubmed: 28408746
pmcid: 5429826
Borges MG, Rocha CS, Carvalho BS, Lopes-Cendes I. Methodological differences can affect sequencing depth with a possible impact on the accuracy of genetic diagnosis. Genet Mol Biol. 2020;43(2):e20190270.
doi: 10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2019-0270
pubmed: 32343762
pmcid: 7198014
Suwinski P, Ong C, Ling MHT, Poh YM, Khan AM, Ong HS. Advancing Personalized Medicine Through the Application of Whole Exome Sequencing and Big Data Analytics. Front Genet. 2019;12(10):49.
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00049
Hardwick SA, Deveson IW, Mercer TR. Reference standards for next-generation sequencing. Nat Rev Genet. 2017;18(8):473–84.
doi: 10.1038/nrg.2017.44
pubmed: 28626224
Molina-Ramírez LP, Kyle C, Ellingford JM, Wright R, Taylor A, Bhaskar SS, et al. Personalised virtual gene panels reduce interpretation workload and maintain diagnostic rates of proband-only clinical exome sequencing for rare disorders. J Med Genet. 2022;59(4):393–8.
doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2020-107303
pubmed: 33879512
Molina-Ramírez LP, Burkitt-Wright EMM, Saeed H, McDermott JH, Kyle C, Wright R, et al. The diagnostic utility of clinical exome sequencing in 60 patients with hearing loss disorders: A single-institution experience. Clin Otolaryngol. 2021;46(6):1257–62.
doi: 10.1111/coa.13826
pubmed: 34171171
Alfares A, Aloraini T, Subaie LA, Alissa A, Qudsi AA, Alahmad A, et al. Whole-genome sequencing offers additional but limited clinical utility compared with reanalysis of whole-exome sequencing. Genet Med. 2018;20(11):1328–33.
doi: 10.1038/gim.2018.41
pubmed: 29565419
Klee EW, Cousin MA, Pinto E Vairo F, Morales-Rosado JA, Macke EL, Jenkinson WG, et al. Impact of integrated translational research on clinical exome sequencing. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2021;23(3):498–507.
Pinto e Vairo F, Kemppainen JL, Vitek CRR, et al. Implementation of genomic medicine for rare disease in a tertiary healthcare system: Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD). J Transl Med. 2023;21:410. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-023-04183-7 .
Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, 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 Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2015;17(5):405–24.
Friedman DJ, Pollak MR. APOL1 Nephropathy: From Genetics to Clinical Applications. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021;16(2):294.
doi: 10.2215/CJN.15161219
pubmed: 32616495
Mikó ÁK, Menyhárd D, Kaposi A, Antignac C, Tory K. The mutation-dependent pathogenicity of NPHS2 p.R229Q: A guide for clinical assessment. Hum Mutat. 2018;39(12):1854–60.
doi: 10.1002/humu.23660
pubmed: 30260545
Schlingmann KP, Jouret F, Shen K, Nigam A, Arjona FJ, Dafinger C, et al. mTOR-Activating Mutations in RRAGD Are Causative for Kidney Tubulopathy and Cardiomyopathy. J Am Soc Nephrol JASN. 2021;32(11):2885–99.
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2021030333
pubmed: 34607910
Flannick J, Johansson S, Njølstad PR. Common and rare forms of diabetes mellitus: towards a continuum of diabetes subtypes. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2016;12(7):394–406.
doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2016.50
pubmed: 27080136
Althari S, Najmi LA, Bennett AJ, Aukrust I, Rundle JK, Colclough K, et al. Unsupervised Clustering of Missense Variants in HNF1A Using Multidimensional Functional Data Aids Clinical Interpretation. Am J Hum Genet. 2020;107(4):670–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.08.016
pubmed: 32910913
pmcid: 7536579
Pinto e Vairo F, Kemppainen JL, Lieske JC, Harris PC, Hogan MC. Establishing a nephrology genetic clinic. Kidney Int. 2021;100(2):254–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2021.05.008
pubmed: 34294204
Wilson PC, LoveGreg-ory L, Corliss M, McNulty S, Heusel JW, Gaut JP. Beyond Panel-Based Testing: Exome Analysis Increases Sensitivity for Diagnosis of Genetic Kidney Disease. Kidney360. 2020;1(8):772.
doi: 10.34067/KID.0001342020
pubmed: 35372954
pmcid: 8815744
Pinto e Vairo F, Prochnow C, Kemppainen JL, Lisi EC, Steyermark JM, Kruisselbrink TM, et al. enomics Integration Into Nephrology Practice. Kidney Med. 2021;3(5):785–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.xkme.2021.04.014
pubmed: 34746741
pmcid: 8551494
Furlano M, Martínez V, Pybus M, Arce Y, Crespí J, del Venegas P, et al. Clinical and Genetic Features of Autosomal Dominant Alport Syndrome: A Cohort Study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2021;78(4):560-570.e1.
doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2021.02.326
pubmed: 33838161
Savige J. Heterozygous Pathogenic COL4A3 and COL4A4 Variants (Autosomal Dominant Alport Syndrome) Are Common, and Not Typically Associated With End-Stage Kidney Failure, Hearing Loss, or Ocular Abnormalities. Kidney Int Rep. 2022;7(9):1933–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2022.06.001
pubmed: 36090501
pmcid: 9458992
El Ters M, Pinto E Vairo F, Prochnow C, Schinstock C, Dean P, Kemppainen J, et al. Incorporation of Genetic Studies in the Kidney Transplant Evaluation Clinic: The Value of a Multidisciplinary Approach. Transplantation. 2023;107(4):952–60.
doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000004363
pubmed: 36253919
Tory K, Menyhárd DK, Woerner S, Nevo F, Gribouval O, Kerti A, et al. Mutation-dependent recessive inheritance of NPHS2-associated steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome. Nat Genet. 2014;46(3):299–304.
doi: 10.1038/ng.2898
pubmed: 24509478
Rood IM, Deegens JKJ, Lugtenberg D, Bongers EMHF, Wetzels JFM. Nephrotic Syndrome With Mutations in NPHS2: The Role of R229Q and Implications for Genetic Counseling. Am J Kidney Dis. 2019;73(3):400–3.
doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.06.034
pubmed: 30241959
Improved diagnostic yield compared with targeted gene sequencing panels suggests a role for whole-genome sequencing as a first-tier genetic test | Elsevier Enhanced Reader. [cited 2023 Mar 22]. Available from: https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1098360021018578?token=C4D2C04CC21DED53A6D9B7987FEE99FE1ABFFBE7E35707E01D42BF564DD28781A1081D5AC9952C5416D64A1ED818FE5E&originRegion=us-east-1&originCreation=20230323015807 .
Bartolomaeus T, Hentschel J, Jamra RA, Popp B. Re-evaluation and re-analysis of 152 research exomes five years after the initial report reveals clinically relevant changes in 18%. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023;31(10):1154–64.
doi: 10.1038/s41431-023-01425-6
pubmed: 37460657
pmcid: 10545662
Yu H, Yu H, Zhang R, Peng D, Yan D, Gu Y, Bao Y, Jia W, Zhang H, Hu C. Targeted gene panel provides advantages over whole-exome sequencing for diagnosing obesity and diabetes mellitus. J Mol Cell Biol. 2023;15(6):mjad040. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmcb/mjad040 .
Ferrer A, Schultz-Rogers L, Kaiwar C, Kemppainen JL, Klee EW, Gavrilova RH. Three rare disease diagnoses in one patient through exome sequencing. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2019;5(6):a004390.
doi: 10.1101/mcs.a004390
pubmed: 31427378
pmcid: 6913146
Posey JE, Rosenfeld JA, James RA, Bainbridge M, Niu Z, Wang X, et al. Molecular diagnostic experience of whole-exome sequencing in adult patients. Genet Med Off J Am Coll Med Genet. 2016;18(7):678–85.
Bean L, Funke B, Carlston CM, Gannon JL, Kantarci S, Krock BL, et al. Diagnostic gene sequencing panels: from design to report—a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(3):453–61.
doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0666-z
pubmed: 31732716
Ji J, Leung ML, Baker S, Deignan JL, Santani A. Clinical Exome Reanalysis: Current Practice and Beyond. Mol Diagn Ther. 2021;25(5):529–36.
doi: 10.1007/s40291-021-00541-7
pubmed: 34283395
pmcid: 8410709
Berger SI, Pitsava G, Cohen AJ, Délot EC, LoTempio J, Andrew EH, et al. Increased diagnostic yield from negative whole genome-slice panels using automated reanalysis. Clin Genet. 2023;104(3):377–83.
doi: 10.1111/cge.14360
pubmed: 37194472
Rusmini M, Federici S, Caroli F, Grossi A, Baldi M, Obici L, et al. Next-generation sequencing and its initial applications for molecular diagnosis of systemic auto-inflammatory diseases. Ann Rheum Dis. 2016;75(8):1550–7.
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207701
pubmed: 26386126
Schobers G, Schieving JH, Yntema HG, Pennings M, Pfundt R, Derks R, et al. Reanalysis of exome negative patients with rare disease: a pragmatic workflow for diagnostic applications. Genome Med. 2022;17(14):66.
doi: 10.1186/s13073-022-01069-z