Hanan E Shamseldin1, Sateesh Maddirevula1, Eissa Faqeih2, Niema Ibrahim1, Mais Hashem1, Ranad Shaheen1, Fowzan S Alkuraya1,3. 1. Department of Genetics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2. Department of Pediatric Subspecialties, Children's Hospital, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) has greatly improved the diagnostic process for individuals with suspected genetic disorders. However, the majority remains undiagnosed after CES. Although understanding potential reasons for this limited sensitivity is critical for improving the delivery of clinical genomics, research in this area has been limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first calculated the theoretical maximum sensitivity of CES by analyzing >100 families in whom a Mendelian phenotype is mapped to a single locus. We then tested the hypothesis that positional mapping can limit the search space and thereby facilitate variant interpretation by reanalyzing 33 families with "negative" CES and applying positional mapping. RESULTS: We found that >95% of families who map to a single locus harbored genic (as opposed to intergenic) variants that are potentially identifiable by CES. Our reanalysis of "negative" CES revealed likely causal variants in the majority (88%). Several of these solved cases have undergone negative whole-genome sequencing. CONCLUSION: The discrepancy between the theoretical maximum and the actual clinical sensitivity of CES is primarily in the variant filtration rather than the variant capture and sequencing phase. The solution to negative CES is not necessarily in expanding the coverage but rather in devising approaches that improve variant filtration. We suggest that positional mapping is one such approach.Genet Med advance online publication 06 October 2016.
BACKGROUND: Clinical exome sequencing (CES) has greatly improved the diagnostic process for individuals with suspected genetic disorders. However, the majority remains undiagnosed after CES. Although understanding potential reasons for this limited sensitivity is critical for improving the delivery of clinical genomics, research in this area has been limited. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We first calculated the theoretical maximum sensitivity of CES by analyzing >100 families in whom a Mendelian phenotype is mapped to a single locus. We then tested the hypothesis that positional mapping can limit the search space and thereby facilitate variant interpretation by reanalyzing 33 families with "negative" CES and applying positional mapping. RESULTS: We found that >95% of families who map to a single locus harbored genic (as opposed to intergenic) variants that are potentially identifiable by CES. Our reanalysis of "negative" CES revealed likely causal variants in the majority (88%). Several of these solved cases have undergone negative whole-genome sequencing. CONCLUSION: The discrepancy between the theoretical maximum and the actual clinical sensitivity of CES is primarily in the variant filtration rather than the variant capture and sequencing phase. The solution to negative CES is not necessarily in expanding the coverage but rather in devising approaches that improve variant filtration. We suggest that positional mapping is one such approach.Genet Med advance online publication 06 October 2016.
Authors: Klaus Schmitz-Abe; Qifei Li; Samantha M Rosen; Neeharika Nori; Jill A Madden; Casie A Genetti; Monica H Wojcik; Sadhana Ponnaluri; Cynthia S Gubbels; Jonathan D Picker; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; Timothy W Yu; Olaf Bodamer; Catherine A Brownstein; Alan H Beggs; Pankaj B Agrawal Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Shams Anazi; Sateesh Maddirevula; Vincenzo Salpietro; Yasmine T Asi; Saud Alsahli; Amal Alhashem; Hanan E Shamseldin; Fatema AlZahrani; Nisha Patel; Niema Ibrahim; Firdous M Abdulwahab; Mais Hashem; Nadia Alhashmi; Fathiya Al Murshedi; Adila Al Kindy; Ahmad Alshaer; Ahmed Rumayyan; Saeed Al Tala; Wesam Kurdi; Abdulaziz Alsaman; Ali Alasmari; Selina Banu; Tipu Sultan; Mohammed M Saleh; Hisham Alkuraya; Mustafa A Salih; Hesham Aldhalaan; Tawfeg Ben-Omran; Fatima Al Musafri; Rehab Ali; Jehan Suleiman; Brahim Tabarki; Ayman W El-Hattab; Caleb Bupp; Majid Alfadhel; Nada Al Tassan; Dorota Monies; Stefan T Arold; Mohamed Abouelhoda; Tammaryn Lashley; Henry Houlden; Eissa Faqeih; Fowzan S Alkuraya Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Hanan E Shamseldin; Ola Khalifa; Yousef M Binamer; Abdulmonem Almutawa; Stefan T Arold; Hamad Zaidan; Fowzan S Alkuraya Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Yvonne Bombard; Kyle B Brothers; Sara Fitzgerald-Butt; Nanibaa' A Garrison; Leila Jamal; Cynthia A James; Gail P Jarvik; Jennifer B McCormick; Tanya N Nelson; Kelly E Ormond; Heidi L Rehm; Julie Richer; Emmanuelle Souzeau; Jason L Vassy; Jennifer K Wagner; Howard P Levy Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: A Arteche-López; M I Álvarez-Mora; M T Sánchez Calvin; J M Lezana Rosales; C Palma Milla; M J Gómez Rodríguez; I Gomez Manjón; A Blázquez; A Juarez Rufián; P Ramos Gómez; O Sierra Tomillo; I Hidalgo Mayoral; R Pérez de la Fuente; I J Posada Rodríguez; L I González Granado; Miguel A Martin; J F Quesada-Espinosa; M Moreno-García Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2021-07-15 Impact factor: 5.351
Authors: Marjan Huizing; May C V Malicdan; Jennifer A Wang; Hadass Pri-Chen; Richard A Hess; Roxanne Fischer; Kevin J O'Brien; Melissa A Merideth; William A Gahl; Bernadette R Gochuico Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.700