RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Genome sequencing as a generic diagnostic strategy for rare disease
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.09.28.23296271
DO 10.1101/2023.09.28.23296271
A1 Schobers, Gaby
A1 Derks, Ronny
A1 den Ouden, Amber
A1 Swinkels, Hilde
A1 van Reeuwijk, Jeroen
A1 Bosgoed, Ermanno
A1 Lugtenberg, Dorien
A1 Sun, Su Ming
A1 Corominas Galbany, Jordi
A1 Weiss, Marjan
A1 Blok, Marinus J.
A1 Olde Keizer, Richelle A.C.M.
A1 Hofste, Tom
A1 Hellebrekers, Debby
A1 de Leeuw, Nicole
A1 Stegmann, Alexander
A1 Kamsteeg, Erik-Jan
A1 Paulussen, Aimee D.C.
A1 Ligtenberg, Marjolijn J.L.
A1 Bradley, Xiangqun Zheng
A1 Peden, John
A1 Gutierrez, Alejandra
A1 Pullen, Adam
A1 Payne, Tom
A1 Gilissen, Christian
A1 van den Wijngaard, Arthur
A1 Brunner, Han G.
A1 Nelen, Marcel
A1 Yntema, Helger G.
A1 Vissers, Lisenka E.L.M.
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/28/2023.09.28.23296271.abstract
AB Background To diagnose the full spectrum of hereditary and congenital diseases, genetic laboratories use many different workflows, ranging from karyotyping to exome sequencing. A single generic high-throughput workflow would greatly increase efficiency. We assessed whether genome sequencing (GS) can replace these existing workflows aimed at germline genetic diagnosis for rare disease.Methods We performed GS (NovaSeq™6000; 37x mean coverage) on 1,000 cases with 1,271 known clinically relevant variants, identified across different workflows, representative of our tertiary diagnostic centers. Variants were categorized into small variants (single nucleotide variants and indels <50 bp), large variants (copy number variants and short tandem repeats) and other variants (structural variants and aneuploidies). Variant calling format files were queried per variant, from which workflow-specific true positive rates (TPRs) for detection were determined. A TPR of ≥98% was considered the lower threshold for transition to GS. A GS-first scenario was generated for our laboratory, using diagnostic efficacy and predicted false negative as primary outcome measures. As input, we modeled the diagnostic path for all 24,570 individuals referred in 2022, combining the clinical referral, the transition of the underlying workflow(s) to GS, and the variant type(s) to be detected.Results Overall, 95% (1,206/1,271) of variants were detected. Detection rates differed per variant category: small variants in 96% (826/860), large variants in 93% (341/366), and other variants in 87% (39/45). TPRs varied between workflows (79-100%), with 7/10 being replaceable by GS. Models for our laboratory indicate that a GS-first strategy would be feasible for 84.9% of clinical referrals (750/883), translating to 71% of all individuals (17,444/24,570) receiving GS as their primary test. An estimated false negative rate of 0.3% could be expected.Conclusion GS can capture clinically relevant germline variants in a ‘GS-first strategy’ for the majority of clinical indications in a genetics diagnostic lab.Competing Interest StatementThe authors declare that they have no competing interests, aside from Illumina co-authors (X.B., A.P., T.P.) currently being employees and shareholders of Illumina.Funding StatementThe study was in part funded through grants from the Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (015.014.066 to LELMV). In addition, the aims of this study contribute to the Solve-RD project (to HGB and LELMV), which has received funding from the European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 779257.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Medical Ethics Review Committee Arnhem-Nijmegen of Radboudumc gave ethical approval for this workI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThe dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is(are) included within the article (and its additional file(s)).CAchromosome anomalyCNVcopy number variantsDNAdeoxyribonucleic acidESexome sequencingFISHfluorescence in situ hybridizationFNfalse negativeFNRfalse negative rateGSgenome sequencingMLPAmultiplex ligation-dependent probe amplificationNGSnext generation sequencingSBSouthern blotSMAspinal muscular atrophySNVsingle nucleotide variantSTRshort tandem repeatSVstructural variantTPtrue positiveTPRtrue positive rateVCFvariant calling format