@article {663, title = {Copy number variant and runs of homozygosity detection by microarrays enabled more precise molecular diagnoses in 11,020 clinical exome cases.}, journal = {Genome Med}, volume = {11}, year = {2019}, month = {2019 05 17}, pages = {30}, abstract = {

BACKGROUND: Exome sequencing (ES) has been successfully applied in clinical detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and small indels. However, identification of copy number variants (CNVs) using ES data remains challenging. The purpose of this study is to understand the contribution of CNVs and copy neutral runs of homozygosity (ROH) in molecular diagnosis of patients referred for ES.

METHODS: In a cohort of 11,020 consecutive ES patients, an Illumina SNP array analysis interrogating mostly coding SNPs was performed as a quality control (QC) measurement and for CNV/ROH detection. Among these patients, clinical chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA) was performed at Baylor Genetics (BG) on 3229 patients, either before, concurrently, or after ES. We retrospectively analyzed the findings from CMA and the QC array.

RESULTS: The QC array can detect ~ 70\% of pathogenic/likely pathogenic CNVs (PCNVs) detectable by CMA. Out of the 11,020 ES cases, the QC array identified PCNVs in 327 patients and uniparental disomy (UPD) disorder-related ROH in 10 patients. The overall PCNV/UPD detection rate was 5.9\% in the 3229 ES patients who also had CMA at BG; PCNV/UPD detection rate was higher in concurrent ES and CMA than in ES with prior CMA (7.2\% vs 4.6\%). The PCNVs/UPD contributed to the molecular diagnoses in 17.4\%~(189/1089) of molecularly diagnosed ES cases with CMA and~were estimated to contribute in 10.6\% of all molecularly diagnosed ES cases. Dual diagnoses with both PCNVs and SNVs were detected in 38 patients. PCNVs affecting single recessive disorder genes in a compound heterozygous state with SNVs were detected in 4 patients, and homozygous deletions~(mostly exonic deletions) were detected in 17 patients. A higher PCNV detection rate was observed for patients with syndromic phenotypes and/or cardiovascular abnormalities.

CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical genomics study demonstrates that detection of PCNV/UPD through the QC array or CMA increases ES diagnostic rate, provides more precise molecular diagnosis for dominant as well as recessive traits, and enables more complete genetic diagnoses in patients with dual or multiple molecular diagnoses. Concurrent ES and CMA using an array with exonic coverage for disease genes enables most effective detection of both CNVs and SNVs and therefore is recommended especially in time-sensitive clinical situations.

}, issn = {1756-994X}, doi = {10.1186/s13073-019-0639-5}, author = {Dharmadhikari, Avinash V and Ghosh, Rajarshi and Yuan, Bo and Liu, Pengfei and Dai, Hongzheng and Al Masri, Sami and Scull, Jennifer and Posey, Jennifer E and Jiang, Allen H and He, Weimin and Vetrini, Francesco and Braxton, Alicia A and Ward, Patricia and Chiang, Theodore and Qu, Chunjing and Gu, Shen and Shaw, Chad A and Smith, Janice L and Lalani, Seema and Stankiewicz, Pawel and Cheung, Sau-Wai and Bacino, Carlos A and Patel, Ankita and Breman, Amy M and Wang, Xia and Meng, Linyan and Xiao, Rui and Xia, Fan and Muzny, Donna and Gibbs, Richard A and Beaudet, Arthur L and Eng, Christine M and Lupski, James R and Yang, Yaping and Bi, Weimin} } @article {673, title = {Reanalysis of Clinical Exome Sequencing Data.}, journal = {N Engl J Med}, volume = {380}, year = {2019}, month = {2019 06 20}, pages = {2478-2480}, keywords = {Exome, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Genetic Testing, Humans, Mutation, Phenotype, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Whole Exome Sequencing}, issn = {1533-4406}, doi = {10.1056/NEJMc1812033}, author = {Liu, Pengfei and Meng, Linyan and Normand, Elizabeth A and Xia, Fan and Song, Xiaofei and Ghazi, Andrew and Rosenfeld, Jill and Magoulas, Pilar L and Braxton, Alicia and Ward, Patricia and Dai, Hongzheng and Yuan, Bo and Bi, Weimin and Xiao, Rui and Wang, Xia and Chiang, Theodore and Vetrini, Francesco and He, Weimin and Cheng, Hanyin and Dong, Jie and Gijavanekar, Charul and Benke, Paul J and Bernstein, Jonathan A and Eble, Tanya and Eroglu, Yasemen and Erwin, Deanna and Escobar, Luis and Gibson, James B and Gripp, Karen and Kleppe, Soledad and Koenig, Mary K and Lewis, Andrea M and Natowicz, Marvin and Mancias, Pedro and Minor, LaKeesha and Scaglia, Fernando and Schaaf, Christian P and Streff, Haley and Vernon, Hilary and Uhles, Crescenda L and Zackai, Elaine H and Wu, Nan and Sutton, V Reid and Beaudet, Arthur L and Muzny, Donna and Gibbs, Richard A and Posey, Jennifer E and Lalani, Seema and Shaw, Chad and Eng, Christine M and Lupski, James R and Yang, Yaping} } @article {540, title = {Use of Exome Sequencing for Infants in Intensive Care Units: Ascertainment of Severe Single-Gene Disorders and Effect on Medical Management.}, journal = {JAMA Pediatr}, volume = {171}, year = {2017}, month = {2017 12 04}, pages = {e173438}, abstract = {

Importance: While congenital malformations and genetic diseases are a leading cause of early infant death, to our knowledge, the contribution of single-gene disorders in this group is undetermined.

Objective: To determine the diagnostic yield and use of clinical exome sequencing in critically ill infants.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Clinical exome sequencing was performed for 278 unrelated infants within the first 100 days of life who were admitted to Texas Children{\textquoteright}s Hospital in Houston, Texas, during a 5-year period between December 2011 and January 2017. Exome sequencing types included proband exome, trio exome, and critical trio exome, a rapid genomic assay for seriously ill infants.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Indications for testing, diagnostic yield of clinical exome sequencing, turnaround time, molecular findings, patient age at diagnosis, and effect on medical management among a group of critically ill infants who were suspected to have genetic disorders.

Results: The mean (SEM) age for infants participating in the study was 28.5 (1.7) days; of these, the mean (SEM) age was 29.0 (2.2) days for infants undergoing proband exome sequencing, 31.5 (3.9) days for trio exome, and 22.7 (3.9) days for critical trio exome. Clinical indications for exome sequencing included a range of medical concerns. Overall, a molecular diagnosis was achieved in 102 infants (36.7\%) by clinical exome sequencing, with relatively low yield for cardiovascular abnormalities. The diagnosis affected medical management for 53 infants (52.0\%) and had a substantial effect on informed redirection of care, initiation of new subspecialist care, medication/dietary modifications, and furthering life-saving procedures in select patients. Critical trio exome sequencing revealed a molecular diagnosis in 32 of 63 infants (50.8\%) at a mean (SEM) of 33.1 (5.6) days of life with a mean (SEM) turnaround time of 13.0 (0.4) days. Clinical care was altered by the diagnosis in 23 of 32 patients (71.9\%). The diagnostic yield, patient age at diagnosis, and medical effect in the group that underwent critical trio exome sequencing were significantly different compared with the group who underwent regular exome testing. For deceased infants (n = 81), genetic disorders were molecularly diagnosed in 39 (48.1\%) by exome sequencing, with implications for recurrence risk counseling.

Conclusions and Relevance: Exome sequencing is a powerful tool for the diagnostic evaluation of critically ill infants with suspected monogenic disorders in the neonatal and pediatric intensive care units and its use has a notable effect on clinical decision making.

}, keywords = {Adult, Critical Care, Disease Management, Exome, Genetic Counseling, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Humans, Infant, Infant Care, Infant, Newborn, Intensive Care Units, Pediatric, Length of Stay, Retrospective Studies, Texas, Whole Exome Sequencing}, issn = {2168-6211}, doi = {10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.3438}, author = {Meng, Linyan and Pammi, Mohan and Saronwala, Anirudh and Magoulas, Pilar and Ghazi, Andrew Ray and Vetrini, Francesco and Zhang, Jing and He, Weimin and Dharmadhikari, Avinash V and Qu, Chunjing and Ward, Patricia and Braxton, Alicia and Narayanan, Swetha and Ge, Xiaoyan and Tokita, Mari J and Santiago-Sim, Teresa and Dai, Hongzheng and Chiang, Theodore and Smith, Hadley and Azamian, Mahshid S and Robak, Laurie and Bostwick, Bret L and Schaaf, Christian P and Potocki, Lorraine and Scaglia, Fernando and Bacino, Carlos A and Hanchard, Neil A and Wangler, Michael F and Scott, Daryl and Brown, Chester and Hu, Jianhong and Belmont, John W and Burrage, Lindsay C and Graham, Brett H and Sutton, Vernon Reid and Craigen, William J and Plon, Sharon E and Lupski, James R and Beaudet, Arthur L and Gibbs, Richard A and Muzny, Donna M and Miller, Marcus J and Wang, Xia and Leduc, Magalie S and Xiao, Rui and Liu, Pengfei and Shaw, Chad and Walkiewicz, Magdalena and Bi, Weimin and Xia, Fan and Lee, Brendan and Eng, Christine M and Yang, Yaping and Lalani, Seema R} } @article {217, title = {Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing.}, journal = {JAMA}, volume = {312}, year = {2014}, month = {2014 Nov 12}, pages = {1870-9}, abstract = {

IMPORTANCE: Clinical whole-exome sequencing is increasingly used for diagnostic evaluation of patients with suspected genetic disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To perform clinical whole-exome sequencing and report (1) the rate of molecular diagnosis among phenotypic groups, (2) the spectrum of genetic alterations contributing to disease, and (3) the prevalence of medically actionable incidental findings such as FBN1 mutations causing Marfan syndrome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study of 2000 consecutive patients with clinical whole-exome sequencing analyzed between June 2012 and August 2014. Whole-exome sequencing tests were performed at a clinical genetics laboratory in the United States. Results were reported by clinical molecular geneticists certified by the American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Tests were ordered by the patient{\textquoteright}s physician. The patients were primarily pediatric (1756 [88\%]; mean age, 6 years; 888 females [44\%], 1101 males [55\%], and 11 fetuses [1\% gender unknown]), demonstrating diverse clinical manifestations most often including nervous system dysfunction such as developmental delay.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Whole-exome sequencing diagnosis rate overall and by phenotypic category, mode of inheritance, spectrum of genetic events, and reporting of incidental findings.

RESULTS: A molecular diagnosis was reported for 504 patients (25.2\%) with 58\% of the diagnostic mutations not previously reported. Molecular diagnosis rates for each phenotypic category were 143/526 (27.2\%; 95\% CI, 23.5\%-31.2\%) for the neurological group, 282/1147 (24.6\%; 95\% CI, 22.1\%-27.2\%) for the neurological plus other organ systems group, 30/83 (36.1\%; 95\% CI, 26.1\%-47.5\%) for the specific neurological group, and 49/244 (20.1\%; 95\% CI, 15.6\%-25.8\%) for the nonneurological group. The Mendelian disease patterns of the 527 molecular diagnoses included 280 (53.1\%) autosomal dominant, 181 (34.3\%) autosomal recessive (including 5 with uniparental disomy), 65 (12.3\%) X-linked, and 1 (0.2\%) mitochondrial. Of 504 patients with a molecular diagnosis, 23 (4.6\%) had blended phenotypes resulting from 2 single gene defects. About 30\% of the positive cases harbored mutations in disease genes reported since 2011. There were 95 medically actionable incidental findings in genes unrelated to the phenotype but with immediate implications for management in 92 patients (4.6\%), including 59 patients (3\%) with mutations in genes recommended for reporting by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Whole-exome sequencing provided a potential molecular diagnosis for 25\% of a large cohort of patients referred for evaluation of suspected genetic conditions, including detection of rare genetic events and new mutations contributing to disease. The yield of whole-exome sequencing may offer advantages over traditional molecular diagnostic approaches in certain patients.

}, keywords = {Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Exome, Female, Fetus, Genetic Diseases, Inborn, Genetic Testing, Genomics, Humans, Incidental Findings, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Mutation, Phenotype, Referral and Consultation, Sequence Analysis, DNA}, issn = {1538-3598}, doi = {10.1001/jama.2014.14601}, author = {Yang, Yaping and Muzny, Donna M and Xia, Fan and Niu, Zhiyv and Person, Richard and Ding, Yan and Ward, Patricia and Braxton, Alicia and Wang, Min and Buhay, Christian and Veeraraghavan, Narayanan and Hawes, Alicia and Chiang, Theodore and Leduc, Magalie and Beuten, Joke and Zhang, Jing and He, Weimin and Scull, Jennifer and Willis, Alecia and Landsverk, Megan and Craigen, William J and Bekheirnia, Mir Reza and Stray-Pedersen, Asbjorg and Liu, Pengfei and Wen, Shu and Alcaraz, Wendy and Cui, Hong and Walkiewicz, Magdalena and Reid, Jeffrey and Bainbridge, Matthew and Patel, Ankita and Boerwinkle, Eric and Beaudet, Arthur L and Lupski, James R and Plon, Sharon E and Gibbs, Richard A and Eng, Christine M} }