Caroline F Wright1, Ruth Y Eberhardt2, Panayiotis Constantinou3, Matthew E Hurles2, David R FitzPatrick4, Helen V Firth5,6. 1. Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. caroline.wright@exeter.ac.uk. 2. Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK. 3. Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK. 4. MRC Human Genetics Unit, MRC Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK. 5. Wellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK. hvf21@cam.ac.uk. 6. East Anglian Medical Genetics Service, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge, UK. hvf21@cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Automated variant filtering is an essential part of diagnostic genome-wide sequencing but may generate false negative results. We sought to investigate whether some previously identified pathogenic variants may be being routinely excluded by standard variant filtering pipelines. METHODS: We evaluated variants that were previously classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic in ClinVar in known developmental disorder genes using exome sequence data from the Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) study. RESULTS: Of these ClinVar pathogenic variants, 3.6% were identified among 13,462 DDD probands, and 1134/1352 (83.9%) had already been independently communicated to clinicians using DDD variant filtering pipelines as plausibly pathogenic. The remaining 218 variants failed consequence, inheritance, or other automated variant filters. Following clinical review of these additional variants, we were able to identify 112 variants in 107 (0.8%) DDD probands as potential diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Lower minor allele frequency (<0.0005%) and higher gold star review status in ClinVar (>1 star) are good predictors of a previously identified variant being plausibly diagnostic for developmental disorders. However, around half of previously identified pathogenic variants excluded by automated variant filtering did not appear to be disease-causing, underlining the continued need for clinical evaluation of candidate variants as part of the diagnostic process.
PURPOSE: Automated variant filtering is an essential part of diagnostic genome-wide sequencing but may generate false negative results. We sought to investigate whether some previously identified pathogenic variants may be being routinely excluded by standard variant filtering pipelines. METHODS: We evaluated variants that were previously classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic in ClinVar in known developmental disorder genes using exome sequence data from the Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) study. RESULTS: Of these ClinVar pathogenic variants, 3.6% were identified among 13,462 DDD probands, and 1134/1352 (83.9%) had already been independently communicated to clinicians using DDD variant filtering pipelines as plausibly pathogenic. The remaining 218 variants failed consequence, inheritance, or other automated variant filters. Following clinical review of these additional variants, we were able to identify 112 variants in 107 (0.8%) DDD probands as potential diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Lower minor allele frequency (<0.0005%) and higher gold star review status in ClinVar (>1 star) are good predictors of a previously identified variant being plausibly diagnostic for developmental disorders. However, around half of previously identified pathogenic variants excluded by automated variant filtering did not appear to be disease-causing, underlining the continued need for clinical evaluation of candidate variants as part of the diagnostic process.
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: M Ece Kars; A Nazlı Başak; O Emre Onat; Kaya Bilguvar; Jungmin Choi; Yuval Itan; Caner Çağlar; Robin Palvadeau; Jean-Laurent Casanova; David N Cooper; Peter D Stenson; Alper Yavuz; Hakan Buluş; Murat Günel; Jeffrey M Friedman; Tayfun Özçelik Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Simona D Frederiksen; Vladimir Avramović; Tatiana Maroilley; Anna Lehman; Laura Arbour; Maja Tarailo-Graovac Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2022-02-22 Impact factor: 4.123
Authors: Juan L Rodriguez-Flores; Radja Messai-Badji; Amal Robay; Asmaa Althani; Ronald G Crystal; Ramzi Temanni; Najeeb Syed; Monika Markovic; Eiman Al-Khayat; Fatima Qafoud; Zafar Nawaz; Ramin Badii; Yasser Al-Sarraj; Hamdi Mbarek; Wadha Al-Muftah; Muhammad Alvi; Mahboubeh R Rostami; Juan Carlos Martinez Cruzado; Jason G Mezey; Alya Al Shakaki; Joel A Malek; Matthew B Greenblatt; Khalid A Fakhro; Khaled Machaca; Ajayeb Al-Nabet; Nahla Afifi; Andrew Brooks; Said I Ismail Journal: NPJ Genom Med Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 6.083