PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing has transformed genetic research and is poised to revolutionize clinical diagnosis. However, the vast amount of data and inevitable discovery of incidental findings require novel analytic approaches. We therefore implemented for the first time a strategy that utilizes an a priori structured framework and a conservative threshold for selecting clinically relevant incidental findings. METHODS: We categorized 2,016 genes linked with Mendelian diseases into "bins" based on clinical utility and validity, and used a computational algorithm to analyze 80 whole-genome sequences in order to explore the use of such an approach in a simulated real-world setting. RESULTS: The algorithm effectively reduced the number of variants requiring human review and identified incidental variants with likely clinical relevance. Incorporation of the Human Gene Mutation Database improved the yield for missense mutations but also revealed that a substantial proportion of purported disease-causing mutations were misleading. CONCLUSION: This approach is adaptable to any clinically relevant bin structure, scalable to the demands of a clinical laboratory workflow, and flexible with respect to advances in genomics. We anticipate that application of this strategy will facilitate pretest informed consent, laboratory analysis, and posttest return of results in a clinical context.
PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing has transformed genetic research and is poised to revolutionize clinical diagnosis. However, the vast amount of data and inevitable discovery of incidental findings require novel analytic approaches. We therefore implemented for the first time a strategy that utilizes an a priori structured framework and a conservative threshold for selecting clinically relevant incidental findings. METHODS: We categorized 2,016 genes linked with Mendelian diseases into "bins" based on clinical utility and validity, and used a computational algorithm to analyze 80 whole-genome sequences in order to explore the use of such an approach in a simulated real-world setting. RESULTS: The algorithm effectively reduced the number of variants requiring human review and identified incidental variants with likely clinical relevance. Incorporation of the Human Gene Mutation Database improved the yield for missense mutations but also revealed that a substantial proportion of purported disease-causing mutations were misleading. CONCLUSION: This approach is adaptable to any clinically relevant bin structure, scalable to the demands of a clinical laboratory workflow, and flexible with respect to advances in genomics. We anticipate that application of this strategy will facilitate pretest informed consent, laboratory analysis, and posttest return of results in a clinical context.
Authors: Euan A Ashley; Atul J Butte; Matthew T Wheeler; Rong Chen; Teri E Klein; Frederick E Dewey; Joel T Dudley; Kelly E Ormond; Aleksandra Pavlovic; Alexander A Morgan; Dmitry Pushkarev; Norma F Neff; Louanne Hudgins; Li Gong; Laura M Hodges; Dorit S Berlin; Caroline F Thorn; Katrin Sangkuhl; Joan M Hebert; Mark Woon; Hersh Sagreiya; Ryan Whaley; Joshua W Knowles; Michael F Chou; Joseph V Thakuria; Abraham M Rosenbaum; Alexander Wait Zaranek; George M Church; Henry T Greely; Stephen R Quake; Russ B Altman Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Callum J Bell; Darrell L Dinwiddie; Neil A Miller; Shannon L Hateley; Elena E Ganusova; Joann Mudge; Ray J Langley; Lu Zhang; Clarence C Lee; Faye D Schilkey; Vrunda Sheth; Jimmy E Woodward; Heather E Peckham; Gary P Schroth; Ryan W Kim; Stephen F Kingsmore Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: James R Lupski; Jeffrey G Reid; Claudia Gonzaga-Jauregui; David Rio Deiros; David C Y Chen; Lynne Nazareth; Matthew Bainbridge; Huyen Dinh; Chyn Jing; David A Wheeler; Amy L McGuire; Feng Zhang; Pawel Stankiewicz; John J Halperin; Chengyong Yang; Curtis Gehman; Danwei Guo; Rola K Irikat; Warren Tom; Nick J Fantin; Donna M Muzny; Richard A Gibbs Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth A Worthey; Alan N Mayer; Grant D Syverson; Daniel Helbling; Benedetta B Bonacci; Brennan Decker; Jaime M Serpe; Trivikram Dasu; Michael R Tschannen; Regan L Veith; Monica J Basehore; Ulrich Broeckel; Aoy Tomita-Mitchell; Marjorie J Arca; James T Casper; David A Margolis; David P Bick; Martin J Hessner; John M Routes; James W Verbsky; Howard J Jacob; David P Dimmock Journal: Genet Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Francesca Cittadini; Nadia De Giovanni; Mireia Alcalde; Sara Partemi; Arnaldo Carbone; Oscar Campuzano; Ramon Brugada; Antonio Oliva Journal: Int J Legal Med Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 2.686
Authors: Jacob C Ulirsch; Jeffrey M Verboon; Shideh Kazerounian; Michael H Guo; Daniel Yuan; Leif S Ludwig; Robert E Handsaker; Nour J Abdulhay; Claudia Fiorini; Giulio Genovese; Elaine T Lim; Aaron Cheng; Beryl B Cummings; Katherine R Chao; Alan H Beggs; Casie A Genetti; Colin A Sieff; Peter E Newburger; Edyta Niewiadomska; Michal Matysiak; Adrianna Vlachos; Jeffrey M Lipton; Eva Atsidaftos; Bertil Glader; Anupama Narla; Pierre-Emmanuel Gleizes; Marie-Françoise O'Donohue; Nathalie Montel-Lehry; David J Amor; Steven A McCarroll; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; Namrata Gupta; Stacey B Gabriel; Daniel G MacArthur; Eric S Lander; Monkol Lek; Lydie Da Costa; David G Nathan; Andrei A Korostelev; Ron Do; Vijay G Sankaran; Hanna T Gazda Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Denise M Lautenbach; Kurt D Christensen; Jeffrey A Sparks; Robert C Green Journal: Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet Date: 2013 Impact factor: 8.929
Authors: Danton S Char; Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz; Aliessa Barnes; David Magnus; Michael J Deem; John D Lantos Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 7.124