S Pajusalu1,2, T Kahre1,2, H Roomere1, Ü Murumets1, L Roht1, K Simenson1, T Reimand1,2,3, K Õunap1,2. 1. Department of Clinical Genetics, United Laboratories, Tartu University Hospital, Tartu, Estonia. 2. Department of Clinical Genetics, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia. 3. Department of Biomedicine, Institute of Biomedicine and Translational Medicine, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In addition to whole exomes, large gene panels of clinically associated genes are used as high-throughput sequencing tests in many clinical centers, but their clinical utility has been much less investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here we report the results of the 501 first unselected cases for whom TruSight One panel (Illumina Inc., San Diego, California) was sequenced as a clinical diagnostic test for a variety of indications in our department. The analysis was restricted to virtual subpanels based on referral forms, where doctors were asked to list candidate genes or select one from predefined larger panels. RESULTS: A probable or definite pathogenic finding was reported in 26.3% of cases. In 238 samples for whom 1 to 9 genes were requested for analysis, the diagnostic yield was significantly higher compared to other 263 cases for whom larger subpanels were requested (31.5% vs 21.7%, respectively, P = .016). Detected mutations included single nucleotide variants, small insertions and deletions, and larger copy number variants. Out of 157 reported mutations, 67 were previously undescribed. CONCLUSION: The clinical utility of large gene panel sequencing in the context of other genetic diagnostic tests is discussed in detail.
BACKGROUND: In addition to whole exomes, large gene panels of clinically associated genes are used as high-throughput sequencing tests in many clinical centers, but their clinical utility has been much less investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Here we report the results of the 501 first unselected cases for whom TruSight One panel (Illumina Inc., San Diego, California) was sequenced as a clinical diagnostic test for a variety of indications in our department. The analysis was restricted to virtual subpanels based on referral forms, where doctors were asked to list candidate genes or select one from predefined larger panels. RESULTS: A probable or definite pathogenic finding was reported in 26.3% of cases. In 238 samples for whom 1 to 9 genes were requested for analysis, the diagnostic yield was significantly higher compared to other 263 cases for whom larger subpanels were requested (31.5% vs 21.7%, respectively, P = .016). Detected mutations included single nucleotide variants, small insertions and deletions, and larger copy number variants. Out of 157 reported mutations, 67 were previously undescribed. CONCLUSION: The clinical utility of large gene panel sequencing in the context of other genetic diagnostic tests is discussed in detail.
Authors: Gordon K C Leung; H M Luk; Vincent H M Tang; W W Gao; Christopher C Y Mak; Mullin H C Yu; W L Wong; Yoyo W Y Chu; W L Yang; Wilfred H S Wong; Alvin C H Ma; Anskar Y H Leung; D Y Jin; Kelvin Y K Chan; Judith Allanson; Ivan F M Lo; Brian H Y Chung Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Laura Gieldon; Luisa Mackenroth; Anne-Karin Kahlert; Johannes R Lemke; Joseph Porrmann; Jens Schallner; Maja von der Hagen; Susanne Markus; Sabine Weidensee; Barbara Novotna; Charlotte Soerensen; Barbara Klink; Johannes Wagner; Andreas Tzschach; Arne Jahn; Franziska Kuhlee; Karl Hackmann; Evelin Schrock; Nataliya Di Donato; Andreas Rump Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luke O'Gorman; Chelsea S Norman; Luke Michaels; Tutte Newall; Andrew H Crosby; Christopher Mattocks; Angela J Cree; Andrew J Lotery; Emma L Baple; J Arjuna Ratnayaka; Diana Baralle; Helena Lee; Daniel Osborne; Fatima Shawkat; Jane Gibson; Sarah Ennis; Jay E Self Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Siiri Sarv; Tiina Kahre; Eve Vaidla; Sander Pajusalu; Kai Muru; Haide Põder; Katrin Gross-Paju; Sandra Ütt; Riina Žordania; Inga Talvik; Eve Õiglane-Shlik; Kristina Muhu; Katrin Õunap Journal: Front Genet Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 4.599