RESUMO
Purpose: To investigate the number of rare missense variants observed in human genome sequences by ACMG/AMP PP3/BP4 evidence strength, following the calibrated PP3/BP4 computational recommendations. Methods: Missense variants from the genome sequences of 300 probands from the Rare Genomes Project with suspected rare disease were analyzed using computational prediction tools able to reach PP3_Strong and BP4_Moderate evidence strengths (BayesDel, MutPred2, REVEL, and VEST4). The numbers of variants at each evidence strength were analyzed across disease-associated genes and genome-wide. Results: From a median of 75.5 rare (≤1% allele frequency) missense variants in disease-associated genes per proband, a median of one reached PP3_Strong, 3-5 PP3_Moderate, and 3-5 PP3_Supporting. Most were allocated BP4 evidence (median 41-49 per proband) or were indeterminate (median 17.5-19 per proband). Extending the analysis to all protein-coding genes genome-wide, the number of PP3_Strong variants increased approximately 2.6-fold compared to disease-associated genes, with a median per proband of 1-3 PP3_Strong, 8-16 PP3_Moderate, and 10-17 PP3_Supporting. Conclusion: A small number of variants per proband reached PP3_Strong and PP3_Moderate in 3,424 disease-associated genes, and though not the intended use of the recommendations, also genome-wide. Use of PP3/BP4 evidence as recommended from calibrated computational prediction tools in the clinical diagnostic laboratory is unlikely to inappropriately contribute to the classification of an excessive number of variants as Pathogenic or Likely Pathogenic by ACMG/AMP rules.
RESUMO
Short-read genome sequencing (GS) holds the promise of becoming the primary diagnostic approach for the assessment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and fetal structural anomalies (FSAs). However, few studies have comprehensively evaluated its performance against current standard-of-care diagnostic tests: karyotype, chromosomal microarray (CMA), and exome sequencing (ES). To assess the clinical utility of GS, we compared its diagnostic yield against these three tests in 1,612 quartet families including an individual with ASD and in 295 prenatal families. Our GS analytic framework identified a diagnostic variant in 7.8% of ASD probands, almost 2-fold more than CMA (4.3%) and 3-fold more than ES (2.7%). However, when we systematically captured copy-number variants (CNVs) from the exome data, the diagnostic yield of ES (7.4%) was brought much closer to, but did not surpass, GS. Similarly, we estimated that GS could achieve an overall diagnostic yield of 46.1% in unselected FSAs, representing a 17.2% increased yield over karyotype, 14.1% over CMA, and 4.1% over ES with CNV calling or 36.1% increase without CNV discovery. Overall, GS provided an added diagnostic yield of 0.4% and 0.8% beyond the combination of all three standard-of-care tests in ASD and FSAs, respectively. This corresponded to nine GS unique diagnostic variants, including sequence variants in exons not captured by ES, structural variants (SVs) inaccessible to existing standard-of-care tests, and SVs where the resolution of GS changed variant classification. Overall, this large-scale evaluation demonstrated that GS significantly outperforms each individual standard-of-care test while also outperforming the combination of all three tests, thus warranting consideration as the first-tier diagnostic approach for the assessment of ASD and FSAs.