PURPOSE: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) are used to diagnose genetic and inherited disorders. However, few studies comparing the detection rates of WES and WGS in clinical settings have been performed. METHODS: Variant call format files were generated and raw data analysis was performed in cases in which the final molecular results showed discrepancies. We classified the possible explanations for the discrepancies into three categories: the time interval between the two tests, the technical limitations of WES, and the impact of the sequencing system type. RESULTS: This cohort comprised 108 patients with negative array comparative genomic hybridization and negative or inconclusive WES results before WGS was performed. Ten (9%) patients had positive WGS results. However, after reanalysis the WGS hit rate decreased to 7% (7 cases). In four cases the variants were identified by WES but missed for different reasons. Only 3 cases (3%) were positive by WGS but completely unidentified by WES. CONCLUSION: In this study, we showed that 30% of the positive cases identified by WGS could be identified by reanalyzing the WES raw data, and WGS achieved an only 7% higher detection rate. Therefore, until the cost of WGS approximates that of WES, reanalyzing WES raw data is recommended before performing WGS.
PURPOSE: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) are used to diagnose genetic and inherited disorders. However, few studies comparing the detection rates of WES and WGS in clinical settings have been performed. METHODS: Variant call format files were generated and raw data analysis was performed in cases in which the final molecular results showed discrepancies. We classified the possible explanations for the discrepancies into three categories: the time interval between the two tests, the technical limitations of WES, and the impact of the sequencing system type. RESULTS: This cohort comprised 108 patients with negative array comparative genomic hybridization and negative or inconclusive WES results before WGS was performed. Ten (9%) patients had positive WGS results. However, after reanalysis the WGS hit rate decreased to 7% (7 cases). In four cases the variants were identified by WES but missed for different reasons. Only 3 cases (3%) were positive by WGS but completely unidentified by WES. CONCLUSION: In this study, we showed that 30% of the positive cases identified by WGS could be identified by reanalyzing the WES raw data, and WGS achieved an only 7% higher detection rate. Therefore, until the cost of WGS approximates that of WES, reanalyzing WES raw data is recommended before performing WGS.
Entities:
Keywords:
consanguinity; detection rate; reanalysis of raw data; whole-exome sequencing; whole-genome sequencing
Authors: Ebba Alkhunaizi; Ranad Shaheen; Sanjay Kumar Bharti; Ann M Joseph-George; Karen Chong; Ghada M H Abdel-Salam; Mohammed Alowain; Susan I Blaser; Blake C Papsin; Mohammed Butt; Mais Hashem; Nicole Martin; Ruth Godoy; Robert M Brosh; Fowzan S Alkuraya; David Chitayat Journal: Am J Med Genet A Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 2.802
Authors: Jeffrey B S Gaither; Grant E Lammi; James L Li; David M Gordon; Harkness C Kuck; Benjamin J Kelly; James R Fitch; Peter White Journal: Gigascience Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 6.524
Authors: Stephen F Kingsmore; Julie A Cakici; Michelle M Clark; Mary Gaughran; Michele Feddock; Sergey Batalov; Matthew N Bainbridge; Jeanne Carroll; Sara A Caylor; Christina Clarke; Yan Ding; Katarzyna Ellsworth; Lauge Farnaes; Amber Hildreth; Charlotte Hobbs; Kiely James; Cyrielle I Kint; Jerica Lenberg; Shareef Nahas; Lance Prince; Iris Reyes; Lisa Salz; Erica Sanford; Peter Schols; Nathaly Sweeney; Mari Tokita; Narayanan Veeraraghavan; Kelly Watkins; Kristen Wigby; Terence Wong; Shimul Chowdhury; Meredith S Wright; David Dimmock Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: David R Murdock; Hongzheng Dai; Lindsay C Burrage; Jill A Rosenfeld; Shamika Ketkar; Michaela F Müller; Vicente A Yépez; Julien Gagneur; Pengfei Liu; Shan Chen; Mahim Jain; Gladys Zapata; Carlos A Bacino; Hsiao-Tuan Chao; Paolo Moretti; William J Craigen; Neil A Hanchard; Brendan Lee Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 14.808
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: André B P van Kuilenburg; Maja Tarailo-Graovac; Phillip A Richmond; Britt I Drögemöller; Mahmoud A Pouladi; René Leen; Koroboshka Brand-Arzamendi; Doreen Dobritzsch; Egor Dolzhenko; Michael A Eberle; Bruce Hayward; Meaghan J Jones; Farhad Karbassi; Michael S Kobor; Janet Koster; Daman Kumari; Meng Li; Julia MacIsaac; Cassandra McDonald; Judith Meijer; Charlotte Nguyen; Indhu-Shree Rajan-Babu; Stephen W Scherer; Bernice Sim; Brett Trost; Laura A Tseng; Marjolein Turkenburg; Joke J F A van Vugt; Jan H Veldink; Jagdeep S Walia; Youdong Wang; Michel van Weeghel; Galen E B Wright; Xiaohong Xu; Ryan K C Yuen; Jinqiu Zhang; Colin J Ross; Wyeth W Wasserman; Michael T Geraghty; Saikat Santra; Ronald J A Wanders; Xiao-Yan Wen; Hans R Waterham; Karen Usdin; Clara D M van Karnebeek Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew H Bailey; William U Meyerson; Lewis Jonathan Dursi; Liang-Bo Wang; Guanlan Dong; Wen-Wei Liang; Amila Weerasinghe; Shantao Li; Yize Li; Sean Kelso; Gordon Saksena; Kyle Ellrott; Michael C Wendl; David A Wheeler; Gad Getz; Jared T Simpson; Mark B Gerstein; Li Ding Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 14.919