2014Clinical ChemistryOpen access

Clinical Exome Performance for Reporting Secondary Genetic Findings

Jason Y. Park, Peter Clark, Eric Londin, Marialuisa Sponziello, Larry J. Kricka, Paolo Fortina

Open full text 35 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reporting clinically actionable incidental genetic findings in the course of clinical exome testing is recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). However, the performance of clinical exome methods for reporting small subsets of genes has not been previously reported. METHODS: In this study, 57 exome data sets performed as clinical (n = 12) or research (n = 45) tests were retrospectively analyzed. Exome sequencing data was examined for adequacy in the detection of potentially pathogenic variant locations in the 56 genes described in the ACMG incidental findings recommendation. All exons of the 56 genes were examined for adequacy of sequencing coverage. In addition, nucleotide positions annotated in HGMD (Human Gene Mutation Database) were examined. RESULTS: The 56 ACMG genes have 18 336 nucleotide variants annotated in HGMD. None of the 57 exome data sets possessed a HGMD variant. The clinical exome test had inadequate coverage for >50% of HGMD variant locations in 7 genes. Six exons from 6 different genes had consistent failure across all 3 test methods; these exons had high GC content (76%-84%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of clinical exome sequencing for the interpretation and reporting of subsets of genes requires recognition of the substantial possibility of inadequate depth and breadth of sequencing coverage at clinically relevant locations. Inadequate depth of coverage may contribute to false-negative clinical exome results.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Reporting clinically actionable incidental genetic findings in the course of clinical exome testing is recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). However, the performance of clinical exome methods for reporting small subsets of genes has not been previously reported. METHODS: In this study, 57 exome data sets performed as clinical (n = 12) or research (n = 45) tests were retrospectively analyzed. Exome sequencing data was examined for adequacy in the detection of potentially pathogenic variant locations in the 56 genes described in the ACMG incidental findings recommendation. All exons of the 56 genes were examined for adequacy of sequencing coverage. In addition, nucleotide positions annotated in HGMD (Human Gene Mutation Database) were examined. RESULTS: The 56 ACMG genes have 18 336 nucleotide variants annotated in HGMD. None of the 57 exome data sets possessed a HGMD variant. The clinical exome test had inadequate coverage for >50% of HGMD variant locations in 7 genes. Six exons from 6 different genes had consistent failure across all 3 test methods; these exons had high GC content (76%-84%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of clinical exome sequencing for the interpretation and reporting of subsets of genes requires recognition of the substantial possibility of inadequate depth and breadth of sequencing coverage at clinically relevant locations. Inadequate depth of coverage may contribute to false-negative clinical exome results.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 35 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Reporting clinically actionable incidental genetic findings in the course of clinical exome testing is recommended by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). However, the performance of clinical exome methods for reporting small subsets of genes has not been previously reported. METHODS: In this study, 57 exome data sets performed as clinical (n = 12) or research (n = 45) tests were retrospectively analyzed. Exome sequencing data was examined for adequacy in the detection of potentially pathogenic variant locations in the 56 genes described in the ACMG incidental findings recommendation. All exons of the 56 genes were examined for adequacy of sequencing coverage. In addition, nucleotide positions annotated in HGMD (Human Gene Mutation Database) were examined. RESULTS: The 56 ACMG genes have 18 336 nucleotide variants annotated in HGMD. None of the 57 exome data sets possessed a HGMD variant. The clinical exome test had inadequate coverage for >50% of HGMD variant locations in 7 genes. Six exons from 6 different genes had consistent failure across all 3 test methods; these exons had high GC content (76%-84%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of clinical exome sequencing for the interpretation and reporting of subsets of genes requires recognition of the substantial possibility of inadequate depth and breadth of sequencing coverage at clinically relevant locations. Inadequate depth of coverage may contribute to false-negative clinical exome results.

Key concepts: Exome sequencing, Exome, Medical genetics, Genetic testing, Exon, Computational biology, Genetics, Gene

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Clinical Exome Performance for Reporting Secondary Genetic Findings — Research Paper | ScholarLens