Genome Sequencing for Diagnosing Rare Diseases.

BACKGROUND: Genetic variants that cause rare disorders may remain elusive even after expansive testing, such as exome sequencing. The diagnostic yield of genome sequencing, particularly after a negative evaluation, remains poorly defined. METHODS: We sequenced and analyzed the genomes of families with diverse phenotypes who were suspected to have a rare monogenic disease and for whom genetic testing had not revealed a diagnosis, as well as the genomes of a replication cohort at an independent clinical center. RESULTS: We sequenced the genomes of 822 families (744 in the initial cohort and 78 in the replication cohort) and made a molecular diagnosis in 218 of 744 families (29.3%). Of the 218 families, 61 (28.0%) - 8.2% of families in the initial cohort - had variants that required genome sequencing for identification, including coding variants, intronic variants, small structural variants, copy-neutral inversions, complex rearrangements, and tandem repeat expansions. Most families in which a molecular diagnosis was made after previous nondiagnostic exome sequencing (63.5%) had variants that could be detected by reanalysis of the exome-sequence data (53.4%) or by additional analytic methods, such as copy-number variant calling, to exome-sequence data (10.8%). We obtained similar results in the replication cohort: in 33% of the families in which a molecular diagnosis was made, or 8% of the cohort, genome sequencing was required, which showed the applicability of these findings to both research and clinical environments. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic yield of genome sequencing in a large, diverse research cohort and in a small clinical cohort of persons who had previously undergone genetic testing was approximately 8% and included several types of pathogenic variation that had not previously been detected by means of exome sequencing or other techniques. (Funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute and others.).

Critical assessment of variant prioritization methods for rare disease diagnosis within the rare genomes project.

BACKGROUND: A major obstacle faced by families with rare diseases is obtaining a genetic diagnosis. The average "diagnostic odyssey" lasts over five years and causal variants are identified in under 50%, even when capturing variants genome-wide. To aid in the interpretation and prioritization of the vast number of variants detected, computational methods are proliferating. Knowing which tools are most effective remains unclear. To evaluate the performance of computational methods, and to encourage innovation in method development, we designed a Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) community challenge to place variant prioritization models head-to-head in a real-life clinical diagnostic setting. METHODS: We utilized genome sequencing (GS) data from families sequenced in the Rare Genomes Project (RGP), a direct-to-participant research study on the utility of GS for rare disease diagnosis and gene discovery. Challenge predictors were provided with a dataset of variant calls and phenotype terms from 175 RGP individuals (65 families), including 35 solved training set families with causal variants specified, and 30 unlabeled test set families (14 solved, 16 unsolved). We tasked teams to identify causal variants in as many families as possible. Predictors submitted variant predictions with estimated probability of causal relationship (EPCR) values. Model performance was determined by two metrics, a weighted score based on the rank position of causal variants, and the maximum F-measure, based on precision and recall of causal variants across all EPCR values. RESULTS: Sixteen teams submitted predictions from 52 models, some with manual review incorporated. Top performers recalled causal variants in up to 13 of 14 solved families within the top 5 ranked variants. Newly discovered diagnostic variants were returned to two previously unsolved families following confirmatory RNA sequencing, and two novel disease gene candidates were entered into Matchmaker Exchange. In one example, RNA sequencing demonstrated aberrant splicing due to a deep intronic indel in ASNS, identified in trans with a frameshift variant in an unsolved proband with phenotypes consistent with asparagine synthetase deficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Model methodology and performance was highly variable. Models weighing call quality, allele frequency, predicted deleteriousness, segregation, and phenotype were effective in identifying causal variants, and models open to phenotype expansion and non-coding variants were able to capture more difficult diagnoses and discover new diagnoses. Overall, computational models can significantly aid variant prioritization. For use in diagnostics, detailed review and conservative assessment of prioritized variants against established criteria is needed.

Critical assessment of variant prioritization methods for rare disease diagnosis within the Rare Genomes Project.

Background: A major obstacle faced by rare disease families is obtaining a genetic diagnosis. The average "diagnostic odyssey" lasts over five years, and causal variants are identified in under 50%. The Rare Genomes Project (RGP) is a direct-to-participant research study on the utility of genome sequencing (GS) for diagnosis and gene discovery. Families are consented for sharing of sequence and phenotype data with researchers, allowing development of a Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) community challenge, placing variant prioritization models head-to-head in a real-life clinical diagnostic setting. Methods: Predictors were provided a dataset of phenotype terms and variant calls from GS of 175 RGP individuals (65 families), including 35 solved training set families, with causal variants specified, and 30 test set families (14 solved, 16 unsolved). The challenge tasked teams with identifying the causal variants in as many test set families as possible. Ranked variant predictions were submitted with estimated probability of causal relationship (EPCR) values. Model performance was determined by two metrics, a weighted score based on rank position of true positive causal variants and maximum F-measure, based on precision and recall of causal variants across EPCR thresholds. Results: Sixteen teams submitted predictions from 52 models, some with manual review incorporated. Top performing teams recalled the causal variants in up to 13 of 14 solved families by prioritizing high quality variant calls that were rare, predicted deleterious, segregating correctly, and consistent with reported phenotype. In unsolved families, newly discovered diagnostic variants were returned to two families following confirmatory RNA sequencing, and two prioritized novel disease gene candidates were entered into Matchmaker Exchange. In one example, RNA sequencing demonstrated aberrant splicing due to a deep intronic indel in ASNS, identified in trans with a frameshift variant, in an unsolved proband with phenotype overlap with asparagine synthetase deficiency. Conclusions: By objective assessment of variant predictions, we provide insights into current state-of-the-art algorithms and platforms for genome sequencing analysis for rare disease diagnosis and explore areas for future optimization. Identification of diagnostic variants in unsolved families promotes synergy between researchers with clinical and computational expertise as a means of advancing the field of clinical genome interpretation.

Advancing Understanding of Inequities in Rare Disease Genomics.

PURPOSE: Advances in genomic research have facilitated rare disease diagnosis for thousands of individuals. Unfortunately, the benefits of advanced genetic diagnostic technology are not distributed equitably among the population, as has been seen in many other health care contexts. Quantifying and describing inequities in genetic diagnostic yield is inherently challenging due to barriers to both clinical and research genetic testing. We therefore present an implementation protocol developed to expand access to our rare disease genomic research study and to further understand existing inequities. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Rare Genomes Project (RGP) at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard offers research genome sequencing to individuals with rare disease who remain genetically undiagnosed through direct interaction with the individual or family. This presents an opportunity for diagnosis beyond the clinical context, thus eliminating many barriers to access. An initial goal of RGP was to equalize access to genomic sequencing by decoupling testing access from proximity to a major medical center and physician referral. However, study participants over the initial 3 years of this project were predominantly white and well resourced. To further understand and address the lack of diversity within RGP, we developed a novel protocol embedded within the larger RGP study, in an approach informed by an implementation science framework. The aims of this protocol were: (1) to diversify recruitment and enrollment within RGP; (2) understand the process and context of implementing genomic medicine for rare disease diagnosis; and (3) investigate the value of a diagnosis for underserved populations. IMPLICATIONS: Improved understanding of existing inequities and potential strategies to address them are needed to advance equity in rare disease genetic diagnosis and research. In addition to the moral imperative of equity in genomic medicine, this approach is critical in order to fully understand the genomic underpinnings of rare disease.

Unique Capabilities of Genome Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis.

Background: Causal variants underlying rare disorders may remain elusive even after expansive gene panels or exome sequencing (ES). Clinicians and researchers may then turn to genome sequencing (GS), though the added value of this technique and its optimal use remain poorly defined. We therefore investigated the advantages of GS within a phenotypically diverse cohort. Methods: GS was performed for 744 individuals with rare disease who were genetically undiagnosed. Analysis included review of single nucleotide, indel, structural, and mitochondrial variants. Results: We successfully solved 218/744 (29.3%) cases using GS, with most solves involving established disease genes (157/218, 72.0%). Of all solved cases, 148 (67.9%) had previously had non-diagnostic ES. We systematically evaluated the 218 causal variants for features requiring GS to identify and 61/218 (28.0%) met these criteria, representing 8.2% of the entire cohort. These included small structural variants (13), copy neutral inversions and complex rearrangements (8), tandem repeat expansions (6), deep intronic variants (15), and coding variants that may be more easily found using GS related to uniformity of coverage (19). Conclusion: We describe the diagnostic yield of GS in a large and diverse cohort, illustrating several types of pathogenic variation eluding ES or other techniques. Our results reveal a higher diagnostic yield of GS, supporting the utility of a genome-first approach, with consideration of GS as a secondary or tertiary test when higher-resolution structural variant analysis is needed or there is a strong clinical suspicion for a condition and prior targeted genetic testing has been negative.