Lina Basel-Salmon1,2,3,4, Naama Orenstein5, Keren Markus-Bustani6, Noa Ruhrman-Shahar6, Yael Kilim6, Nurit Magal6, Monika Weisz Hubshman7, Lily Bazak6. 1. Raphael Recanati Genetic Institute, Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Hospital, Petach Tikva, Israel. basel@post.tau.ac.il. 2. Pediatric Genetics Clinic, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petach Tikva, Israel. basel@post.tau.ac.il. 3. Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. basel@post.tau.ac.il. 4. Felsenstein Medical Research Center, Petach Tikva, Israel. basel@post.tau.ac.il. 5. Pediatric Genetics Clinic, Schneider Children's Medical Center of Israel, Petach Tikva, Israel. 6. Raphael Recanati Genetic Institute, Rabin Medical Center-Beilinson Hospital, Petach Tikva, Israel. 7. Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reanalysis of exome sequencing data when results are negative may yield additional diagnoses. We sought to estimate the contribution of clinical geneticists to the interpretation of sequencing data of their patients. METHODS: The cohort included 84 probands attending a tertiary genetics institute (2015-2018) with a nondiagnostic result on clinical exome sequencing performed in one of five external laboratories. The raw data were uploaded to the Emedgene bioinformatics and interpretation platform for reanalysis by a team of two clinical geneticists, the geneticist directly involved in the patient's care, and a bioinformatician. RESULTS: In ten probands (11.9%), a new definitive diagnosis was reached based on genes that were known to be associated with the phenotype at the time the original report was issued. The main reasons for a negative exome result were incorrect interpretation of the clinical context and absence of OMIM entry. Pathogenic variants in genes with previously unknown gene-disease associations were discovered to be causative in three probands. In total, new diagnoses were established in 13/84 individuals (15.5%). CONCLUSION: Direct access to complete clinical data and shortening of time to including gene-phenotype associations in databases can assist the analytics team and reduce the need for additional unnecessary tests.
PURPOSE: Reanalysis of exome sequencing data when results are negative may yield additional diagnoses. We sought to estimate the contribution of clinical geneticists to the interpretation of sequencing data of their patients. METHODS: The cohort included 84 probands attending a tertiary genetics institute (2015-2018) with a nondiagnostic result on clinical exome sequencing performed in one of five external laboratories. The raw data were uploaded to the Emedgene bioinformatics and interpretation platform for reanalysis by a team of two clinical geneticists, the geneticist directly involved in the patient's care, and a bioinformatician. RESULTS: In ten probands (11.9%), a new definitive diagnosis was reached based on genes that were known to be associated with the phenotype at the time the original report was issued. The main reasons for a negative exome result were incorrect interpretation of the clinical context and absence of OMIM entry. Pathogenic variants in genes with previously unknown gene-disease associations were discovered to be causative in three probands. In total, new diagnoses were established in 13/84 individuals (15.5%). CONCLUSION: Direct access to complete clinical data and shortening of time to including gene-phenotype associations in databases can assist the analytics team and reduce the need for additional unnecessary tests.
Authors: Tiong Yang Tan; Sebastian Lunke; Belinda Chong; Dean Phelan; Miriam Fanjul-Fernandez; Justine E Marum; Vanessa Siva Kumar; Zornitza Stark; Alison Yeung; Natasha J Brown; Chloe Stutterd; Martin B Delatycki; Simon Sadedin; Melissa Martyn; Ilias Goranitis; Natalie Thorne; Clara L Gaff; Susan M White Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Gaby Schobers; Jolanda H Schieving; Michèl A A P Willemsen; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Helger G Yntema; Maartje Pennings; Rolph Pfundt; Ronny Derks; Tom Hofste; Ilse de Wijs; Nienke Wieskamp; Simone van den Heuvel; Jordi Corominas Galbany; Christian Gilissen; Marcel Nelen; Han G Brunner; Tjitske Kleefstra; Erik-Jan Kamsteeg Journal: Genome Med Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 15.266
Authors: Erin Zampaglione; Matthew Maher; Emily M Place; Naomi E Wagner; Stephanie DiTroia; Katherine R Chao; Eleina England; Broad Cmg; Andrew Catomeris; Sherwin Nassiri; Seraphim Himes; Joey Pagliarulo; Charles Ferguson; Eglé Galdikaité-Braziené; Brian Cole; Eric A Pierce; Kinga M Bujakowska Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 8.864
Authors: Thomas Cloney; Lyndon Gallacher; Lynn S Pais; Natalie B Tan; Alison Yeung; Zornitza Stark; Natasha J Brown; George McGillivray; Martin B Delatycki; Michelle G de Silva; Lilian Downie; Chloe A Stutterd; Justine Elliott; Alison G Compton; Alysia Lovgren; Ralph Oertel; David Francis; Katrina M Bell; Simon Sadedin; Sze Chern Lim; Guy Helman; Cas Simons; Daniel G Macarthur; David R Thorburn; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; John Christodoulou; Susan M White; Tiong Yang Tan Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 5.941
Authors: Jasmine L F Fung; Mullin H C Yu; Shushu Huang; Claudia C Y Chung; Marcus C Y Chan; Sander Pajusalu; Christopher C Y Mak; Vivian C C Hui; Mandy H Y Tsang; Kit San Yeung; Monkol Lek; Brian H Y Chung Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 8.617