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.).

Expanding the genetics and phenotypes of ocular congenital cranial dysinnervation disorders.

Purpose: To identify genetic etiologies and genotype/phenotype associations for unsolved ocular congenital cranial dysinnervation disorders (oCCDDs). Methods: We coupled phenotyping with exome or genome sequencing of 467 pedigrees with genetically unsolved oCCDDs, integrating analyses of pedigrees, human and animal model phenotypes, and de novo variants to identify rare candidate single nucleotide variants, insertion/deletions, and structural variants disrupting protein-coding regions. Prioritized variants were classified for pathogenicity and evaluated for genotype/phenotype correlations. Results: Analyses elucidated phenotypic subgroups, identified pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant(s) in 43/467 probands (9.2%), and prioritized variants of uncertain significance in 70/467 additional probands (15.0%). These included known and novel variants in established oCCDD genes, genes associated with syndromes that sometimes include oCCDDs (e.g., MYH10, KIF21B, TGFBR2, TUBB6), genes that fit the syndromic component of the phenotype but had no prior oCCDD association (e.g., CDK13, TGFB2), genes with no reported association with oCCDDs or the syndromic phenotypes (e.g., TUBA4A, KIF5C, CTNNA1, KLB, FGF21), and genes associated with oCCDD phenocopies that had resulted in misdiagnoses. Conclusion: This study suggests that unsolved oCCDDs are clinically and genetically heterogeneous disorders often overlapping other Mendelian conditions and nominates many candidates for future replication and functional studies.

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.