Celina Montemayor1, Patricia A R Brunker2,3, Margaret A Keller4. 1. Department of Transfusion Medicine, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Maryland. 2. Division of Transfusion Medicine, Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. American Red Cross Biomedical Services, Medical Office, Greater Chesapeake and Potomac Region, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. American Red Cross Biomedical Services, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the most recent scientific progress in transfusion medicine genomics and discuss its role within the broad genomic precision medicine model, with a focus on the unique computational and bioinformatic aspects of this emergent field. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent publications continue to validate the feasibility of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) for blood group prediction with three distinct approaches: exome sequencing, whole genome sequencing, and PCR-based targeted NGS methods. The reported correlation of NGS with serologic and alternative genotyping methods ranges from 92 to 99%. NGS has demonstrated improved detection of weak antigens, structural changes, copy number variations, novel genomic variants, and microchimerism. Addition of a transfusion medicine interpretation to any clinically sequenced genome is proposed as a strategy to enhance the cost-effectiveness of precision genomic medicine. Interpretation of NGS in the blood group antigen context requires not only advanced immunohematology knowledge, but also specialized software and hardware resources, and a bioinformatics-trained workforce. SUMMARY: Blood transfusions are a common inpatient procedure, making blood group genomics a promising facet of precision medicine research. Further efforts are needed to embrace transfusion bioinformatic challenges and evaluate its clinical utility.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the most recent scientific progress in transfusion medicine genomics and discuss its role within the broad genomic precision medicine model, with a focus on the unique computational and bioinformatic aspects of this emergent field. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent publications continue to validate the feasibility of using next-generation sequencing (NGS) for blood group prediction with three distinct approaches: exome sequencing, whole genome sequencing, and PCR-based targeted NGS methods. The reported correlation of NGS with serologic and alternative genotyping methods ranges from 92 to 99%. NGS has demonstrated improved detection of weak antigens, structural changes, copy number variations, novel genomic variants, and microchimerism. Addition of a transfusion medicine interpretation to any clinically sequenced genome is proposed as a strategy to enhance the cost-effectiveness of precision genomic medicine. Interpretation of NGS in the blood group antigen context requires not only advanced immunohematology knowledge, but also specialized software and hardware resources, and a bioinformatics-trained workforce. SUMMARY: Blood transfusions are a common inpatient procedure, making blood group genomics a promising facet of precision medicine research. Further efforts are needed to embrace transfusion bioinformatic challenges and evaluate its clinical utility.
Authors: Elizna M Schoeman; Eileen V Roulis; Maree A Perry; Robert L Flower; Catherine A Hyland Journal: Transfusion Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Lonneke Haer-Wigman; Vyne van der Schoot; Ilse Feenstra; Anneke T Vulto-van Silfhout; Christian Gilissen; Han G Brunner; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Helger G Yntema Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: William J Lane; Connie M Westhoff; Nicholas S Gleadall; Maria Aguad; Robin Smeland-Wagman; Sunitha Vege; Daimon P Simmons; Helen H Mah; Matthew S Lebo; Klaudia Walter; Nicole Soranzo; Emanuele Di Angelantonio; John Danesh; David J Roberts; Nick A Watkins; Willem H Ouwehand; Adam S Butterworth; Richard M Kaufman; Heidi L Rehm; Leslie E Silberstein; Robert C Green Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 18.959
Authors: Zachary D Stephens; Skylar Y Lee; Faraz Faghri; Roy H Campbell; Chengxiang Zhai; Miles J Efron; Ravishankar Iyer; Michael C Schatz; Saurabh Sinha; Gene E Robinson Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2015-07-07 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Pawel Suwinski; ChuangKee Ong; Maurice H T Ling; Yang Ming Poh; Asif M Khan; Hui San Ong Journal: Front Genet Date: 2019-02-12 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Stella T Chou; Perry Evans; Sunitha Vege; Sarita L Coleman; David F Friedman; Margaret Keller; Connie M Westhoff Journal: Blood Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Dean Ho; Stephen R Quake; Edward R B McCabe; Wee Joo Chng; Edward K Chow; Xianting Ding; Bruce D Gelb; Geoffrey S Ginsburg; Jason Hassenstab; Chih-Ming Ho; William C Mobley; Garry P Nolan; Steven T Rosen; Patrick Tan; Yun Yen; Ali Zarrinpar Journal: Trends Biotechnol Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 19.536