BACKGROUND: Due to its reduced cost and incomparable advantages, WGS is likely to lead to changes in clinical diagnosis of rare and undiagnosed diseases. However, the sensitivity and breadth of coverage of clinical WGS as a diagnostic test for genetic disorders has not been fully evaluated. METHODS: Here, the performance of WGS in NA12878, the YH cell line, and the Chinese trios were measured by assessing their sensitivity, PPV, depth and breadth of coverage using MGISEQ-2000. We also compared the performance of WES and WGS using NA12878. The sensitivity and PPV were tested using the family-based trio design for the Chinese trios. We further developed a systematic WGS pipeline for the analysis of 8 clinical cases. RESULTS: In general, the sensitivity and PPV for SNV/indel detection increased with mean depth and reached a plateau at an ~ 40X mean depth using down-sampling samples of NA12878. With a mean depth of 40X, the sensitivity of homozygous and heterozygous SNPs of NA12878 was > 99.25% and > 99.50%, respectively, and the PPV was 99.97% and 98.96%. Homozygous and heterozygous indels showed lower sensitivity and PPV. The sensitivity and PPV were still not 100% even with a mean depth of ~ 150X. We also observed a substantial variation in the sensitivity of CNV detection across different tools, especially in CNVs with a size less than 1 kb. In general, the breadth of coverage for disease-associated genes and CNVs increased with mean depth. The sensitivity and coverage of WGS (~ 40X) was better than WES (~ 120X). Among the Chinese trios with an ~ 40X mean depth, the sensitivity among offspring was > 99.48% and > 96.36% for SNP and indel detection, and the PPVs were 99.86% and 97.93%. All 12 previously validated variants in the 8 clinical cases were successfully detected using our WGS pipeline. CONCLUSIONS: The current standard of a mean depth of 40X may be sufficient for SNV/indel detection and identification of most CNVs. It would be advisable for clinical scientists to determine the range of sensitivity and PPV for different classes of variants for a particular WGS pipeline, which would be useful when interpreting and delivering clinical reports.
BACKGROUND: Due to its reduced cost and incomparable advantages, WGS is likely to lead to changes in clinical diagnosis of rare and undiagnosed diseases. However, the sensitivity and breadth of coverage of clinical WGS as a diagnostic test for genetic disorders has not been fully evaluated. METHODS: Here, the performance of WGS in NA12878, the YH cell line, and the Chinese trios were measured by assessing their sensitivity, PPV, depth and breadth of coverage using MGISEQ-2000. We also compared the performance of WES and WGS using NA12878. The sensitivity and PPV were tested using the family-based trio design for the Chinese trios. We further developed a systematic WGS pipeline for the analysis of 8 clinical cases. RESULTS: In general, the sensitivity and PPV for SNV/indel detection increased with mean depth and reached a plateau at an ~ 40X mean depth using down-sampling samples of NA12878. With a mean depth of 40X, the sensitivity of homozygous and heterozygous SNPs of NA12878 was > 99.25% and > 99.50%, respectively, and the PPV was 99.97% and 98.96%. Homozygous and heterozygous indels showed lower sensitivity and PPV. The sensitivity and PPV were still not 100% even with a mean depth of ~ 150X. We also observed a substantial variation in the sensitivity of CNV detection across different tools, especially in CNVs with a size less than 1 kb. In general, the breadth of coverage for disease-associated genes and CNVs increased with mean depth. The sensitivity and coverage of WGS (~ 40X) was better than WES (~ 120X). Among the Chinese trios with an ~ 40X mean depth, the sensitivity among offspring was > 99.48% and > 96.36% for SNP and indel detection, and the PPVs were 99.86% and 97.93%. All 12 previously validated variants in the 8 clinical cases were successfully detected using our WGS pipeline. CONCLUSIONS: The current standard of a mean depth of 40X may be sufficient for SNV/indel detection and identification of most CNVs. It would be advisable for clinical scientists to determine the range of sensitivity and PPV for different classes of variants for a particular WGS pipeline, which would be useful when interpreting and delivering clinical reports.
Entities:
Keywords:
CNV; Clinical diagnosis; DP and breadth of coverage; Sensitivity and PPV; WGS
Authors: Aziz Belkadi; Alexandre Bolze; Yuval Itan; Aurélie Cobat; Quentin B Vincent; Alexander Antipenko; Lei Shang; Bertrand Boisson; Jean-Laurent Casanova; Laurent Abel Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-03-31 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: James R Lupski; Jeffrey G Reid; Claudia Gonzaga-Jauregui; David Rio Deiros; David C Y Chen; Lynne Nazareth; Matthew Bainbridge; Huyen Dinh; Chyn Jing; David A Wheeler; Amy L McGuire; Feng Zhang; Pawel Stankiewicz; John J Halperin; Chengyong Yang; Curtis Gehman; Danwei Guo; Rola K Irikat; Warren Tom; Nick J Fantin; Donna M Muzny; Richard A Gibbs Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark A DePristo; Eric Banks; Ryan Poplin; Kiran V Garimella; Jared R Maguire; Christopher Hartl; Anthony A Philippakis; Guillermo del Angel; Manuel A Rivas; Matt Hanna; Aaron McKenna; Tim J Fennell; Andrew M Kernytsky; Andrey Y Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Stacey B Gabriel; David Altshuler; Mark J Daly Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2011-04-10 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Han Fang; Yiyang Wu; Giuseppe Narzisi; Jason A O'Rawe; Laura T Jimenez Barrón; Julie Rosenbaum; Michael Ronemus; Ivan Iossifov; Michael C Schatz; Gholson J Lyon Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Stefan H Lelieveld; Malte Spielmann; Stefan Mundlos; Joris A Veltman; Christian Gilissen Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2015-06-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Yury A Barbitoff; Dmitrii E Polev; Andrey S Glotov; Elena A Serebryakova; Irina V Shcherbakova; Artem M Kiselev; Anna A Kostareva; Oleg S Glotov; Alexander V Predeus Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 4.379