Hane Lee1, Joshua L Deignan1, Naghmeh Dorrani2, Samuel P Strom1, Sibel Kantarci1, Fabiola Quintero-Rivera1, Kingshuk Das1, Traci Toy1, Bret Harry3, Michael Yourshaw4, Michelle Fox4, Brent L Fogel5, Julian A Martinez-Agosto6, Derek A Wong4, Vivian Y Chang4, Perry B Shieh5, Christina G S Palmer7, Katrina M Dipple6, Wayne W Grody8, Eric Vilain9, Stanley F Nelson10. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles2Clinical Genomics Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 2. Clinical Genomics Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles3Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 3. Institute for Digital Research and Education, University of California, Los Angeles. 4. Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 5. Department of Neurology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 6. Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles6Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 7. Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles7Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. 8. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles2Clinical Genomics Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles3Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen. 9. Clinical Genomics Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles3Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles6Department of Human Genetics, David Geffen School of Medicine. 10. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles2Clinical Genomics Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles6Department of Human Genetics, David Ge.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is rapidly becoming a common molecular diagnostic test for individuals with rare genetic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To report on initial clinical indications for CES referrals and molecular diagnostic rates for different indications and for different test types. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical exome sequencing was performed on 814 consecutive patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions at the University of California, Los Angeles, Clinical Genomics Center between January 2012 and August 2014. Clinical exome sequencing was conducted as trio-CES (both parents and their affected child sequenced simultaneously) to effectively detect de novo and compound heterozygous variants or as proband-CES (only the affected individual sequenced) when parental samples were not available. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical indications for CES requests, molecular diagnostic rates of CES overall and for phenotypic subgroups, and differences in molecular diagnostic rates between trio-CES and proband-CES. RESULTS: Of the 814 cases, the overall molecular diagnosis rate was 26% (213 of 814; 95% CI, 23%-29%). The molecular diagnosis rate for trio-CES was 31% (127 of 410 cases; 95% CI, 27%-36%) and 22% (74 of 338 cases; 95% CI, 18%-27%) for proband-CES. In cases of developmental delay in children (<5 years, n = 138), the molecular diagnosis rate was 41% (45 of 109; 95% CI, 32%-51%) for trio-CES cases and 9% (2 of 23, 95% CI, 1%-28%) for proband-CES cases. The significantly higher diagnostic yield (P value = .002; odds ratio, 7.4 [95% CI, 1.6-33.1]) of trio-CES was due to the identification of de novo and compound heterozygous variants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions, trio-CES was associated with higher molecular diagnostic yield than proband-CES or traditional molecular diagnostic methods. Additional studies designed to validate these findings and to explore the effect of this approach on clinical and economic outcomes are warranted.
IMPORTANCE: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) is rapidly becoming a common molecular diagnostic test for individuals with rare genetic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To report on initial clinical indications for CES referrals and molecular diagnostic rates for different indications and for different test types. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Clinical exome sequencing was performed on 814 consecutive patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions at the University of California, Los Angeles, Clinical Genomics Center between January 2012 and August 2014. Clinical exome sequencing was conducted as trio-CES (both parents and their affected child sequenced simultaneously) to effectively detect de novo and compound heterozygous variants or as proband-CES (only the affected individual sequenced) when parental samples were not available. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Clinical indications for CES requests, molecular diagnostic rates of CES overall and for phenotypic subgroups, and differences in molecular diagnostic rates between trio-CES and proband-CES. RESULTS: Of the 814 cases, the overall molecular diagnosis rate was 26% (213 of 814; 95% CI, 23%-29%). The molecular diagnosis rate for trio-CES was 31% (127 of 410 cases; 95% CI, 27%-36%) and 22% (74 of 338 cases; 95% CI, 18%-27%) for proband-CES. In cases of developmental delay in children (<5 years, n = 138), the molecular diagnosis rate was 41% (45 of 109; 95% CI, 32%-51%) for trio-CES cases and 9% (2 of 23, 95% CI, 1%-28%) for proband-CES cases. The significantly higher diagnostic yield (P value = .002; odds ratio, 7.4 [95% CI, 1.6-33.1]) of trio-CES was due to the identification of de novo and compound heterozygous variants. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of patients with undiagnosed, suspected genetic conditions, trio-CES was associated with higher molecular diagnostic yield than proband-CES or traditional molecular diagnostic methods. Additional studies designed to validate these findings and to explore the effect of this approach on clinical and economic outcomes are warranted.
Authors: Peter Papenhausen; Stuart Schwartz; Hiba Risheg; Elisabeth Keitges; Inder Gadi; Rachel D Burnside; Vikram Jaswaney; John Pappas; Romela Pasion; Kenneth Friedman; James Tepperberg Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2011-03-15 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Sarah E Heron; Katherine R Smith; Melanie Bahlo; Lino Nobili; Esther Kahana; Laura Licchetta; Karen L Oliver; Aziz Mazarib; Zaid Afawi; Amos Korczyn; Giuseppe Plazzi; Steven Petrou; Samuel F Berkovic; Ingrid E Scheffer; Leanne M Dibbens Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2012-10-21 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Michael Yourshaw; S Paige Taylor; Aliz R Rao; Martín G Martín; Stanley F Nelson Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: H Duzkale; J Shen; H McLaughlin; A Alfares; M A Kelly; T J Pugh; B H Funke; H L Rehm; M S Lebo Journal: Clin Genet Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 4.438
Authors: C Sue Richards; Sherri Bale; Daniel B Bellissimo; Soma Das; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri R Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Brian E Ward Journal: Genet Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Catherine W Rehder; Karen L David; Betsy Hirsch; Helga V Toriello; Carolyn M Wilson; Hutton M Kearney Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Brian J O'Roak; Laura Vives; Santhosh Girirajan; Emre Karakoc; Niklas Krumm; Bradley P Coe; Roie Levy; Arthur Ko; Choli Lee; Joshua D Smith; Emily H Turner; Ian B Stanaway; Benjamin Vernot; Maika Malig; Carl Baker; Beau Reilly; Joshua M Akey; Elhanan Borenstein; Mark J Rieder; Deborah A Nickerson; Raphael Bernier; Jay Shendure; Evan E Eichler Journal: Nature Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Robert C Green; Jonathan S Berg; Wayne W Grody; Sarah S Kalia; Bruce R Korf; Christa L Martin; Amy L McGuire; Robert L Nussbaum; Julianne M O'Daniel; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Michael S Watson; Marc S Williams; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Asaf Vivante; Marc-Jens Kleppa; Julian Schulz; Stefan Kohl; Amita Sharma; Jing Chen; Shirlee Shril; Daw-Yang Hwang; Anna-Carina Weiss; Michael M Kaminski; Rachel Shukrun; Markus J Kemper; Anja Lehnhardt; Rolf Beetz; Simone Sanna-Cherchi; Miguel Verbitsky; Ali G Gharavi; Helen M Stuart; Sally A Feather; Judith A Goodship; Timothy H J Goodship; Adrian S Woolf; Sjirk J Westra; Daniel P Doody; Stuart B Bauer; Richard S Lee; Rosalyn M Adam; Weining Lu; Heiko M Reutter; Elijah O Kehinde; Erika J Mancini; Richard P Lifton; Velibor Tasic; Soeren S Lienkamp; Harald Jüppner; Andreas Kispert; Friedhelm Hildebrandt Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: S Anazi; S Maddirevula; E Faqeih; H Alsedairy; F Alzahrani; H E Shamseldin; N Patel; M Hashem; N Ibrahim; F Abdulwahab; N Ewida; H S Alsaif; H Al Sharif; W Alamoudi; A Kentab; F A Bashiri; M Alnaser; A H AlWadei; M Alfadhel; W Eyaid; A Hashem; A Al Asmari; M M Saleh; A AlSaman; K A Alhasan; M Alsughayir; M Al Shammari; A Mahmoud; Z N Al-Hassnan; M Al-Husain; R Osama Khalil; N Abd El Meguid; A Masri; R Ali; T Ben-Omran; P El Fishway; A Hashish; A Ercan Sencicek; M State; A M Alazami; M A Salih; N Altassan; S T Arold; M Abouelhoda; S M Wakil; D Monies; R Shaheen; F S Alkuraya Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 15.992
Authors: Valerie A Arboleda; Hane Lee; Naghmeh Dorrani; Neda Zadeh; Mary Willis; Colleen Forsyth Macmurdo; Melanie A Manning; Andrea Kwan; Louanne Hudgins; Florian Barthelemy; M Carrie Miceli; Fabiola Quintero-Rivera; Sibel Kantarci; Samuel P Strom; Joshua L Deignan; Wayne W Grody; Eric Vilain; Stanley F Nelson Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 11.025
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: Elisa A Mahler; Jessika Johannsen; Konstantinos Tsiakas; Katja Kloth; Sabine Lüttgen; Chris Mühlhausen; Bader Alhaddad; Tobias B Haack; Tim M Strom; Fanny Kortüm; Thomas Meitinger; Ania C Muntau; René Santer; Christian Kubisch; Davor Lessel; Jonas Denecke; Maja Hempel Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Damian Smedley; Max Schubach; Julius O B Jacobsen; Sebastian Köhler; Tomasz Zemojtel; Malte Spielmann; Marten Jäger; Harry Hochheiser; Nicole L Washington; Julie A McMurry; Melissa A Haendel; Christopher J Mungall; Suzanna E Lewis; Tudor Groza; Giorgio Valentini; Peter N Robinson Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 11.025