Whole-genome sequencing offers additional but limited clinical utility compared with reanalysis of whole-exome sequencing.

PURPOSE: Whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) are used to diagnose genetic and inherited disorders. However, few studies comparing the detection rates of WES and WGS in clinical settings have been performed. METHODS: Variant call format files were generated and raw data analysis was performed in cases in which the final molecular results showed discrepancies. We classified the possible explanations for the discrepancies into three categories: the time interval between the two tests, the technical limitations of WES, and the impact of the sequencing system type. RESULTS: This cohort comprised 108 patients with negative array comparative genomic hybridization and negative or inconclusive WES results before WGS was performed. Ten (9%) patients had positive WGS results. However, after reanalysis the WGS hit rate decreased to 7% (7 cases). In four cases the variants were identified by WES but missed for different reasons. Only 3 cases (3%) were positive by WGS but completely unidentified by WES. CONCLUSION: In this study, we showed that 30% of the positive cases identified by WGS could be identified by reanalyzing the WES raw data, and WGS achieved an only 7% higher detection rate. Therefore, until the cost of WGS approximates that of WES, reanalyzing WES raw data is recommended before performing WGS.

A first-line diagnostic assay for limb-girdle muscular dystrophy and other myopathies.

BACKGROUND: Fifty random genetically unstudied families (limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD)/myopathy) were screened with a gene panel incorporating 759 OMIM genes associated with neurological disorders. Average coverage of the CDS and 10 bp flanking regions of genes was 99 %. All families were referred to the Neurosciences Clinic of King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Saudi Arabia. Patients presented with muscle weakness affecting the pelvic and shoulder girdle. Muscle biopsy in all cases showed dystrophic or myopathic changes. Our main objective was to evaluate a neurological gene panel as a first-line diagnostic test for LGMD/myopathies. RESULTS: Our panel identified the mutation in 76 % of families (38/50; 11 novel). Thirty-four families had mutations in LGMD-related genes with four others having variants not typically associated with LGMD. The majority of cases had recessive inheritance with homoallelic pathogenic variants (97.4 %, 37/38), as expected considering the high rate of consanguinity in the study population. In one case, we detected a heterozygous mutation in DNAJB responsible for LGMD-1E. Our cohort included seven different subtypes of LGMD2. Mutations of DYSF were the most commonly identified cause of disease followed by that in CAPN3 and FKRP. Non-LGMD myopathies were due to mutations in genes associated with congenital disorder of glycosylation (ALG2), rigid spine muscular dystrophy 1 (SEPN1), inclusion body myopathy2/Nonaka myopathy (GNE), and neuropathy (WNK1). Whole exome sequencing (WES) of patients who remained undiagnosed with the neurological panel did not improve our diagnostic yield. CONCLUSIONS: Our neurological panel achieved a high clinical sensitivity (76 %) and is an effective first-line laboratory test in patients with LGMD and other myopathies. This sensitive, cost-effective, and rapid assay significantly assists clinical practice especially in these phenotypically and genetically heterogeneous disorders. Moreover, the application of the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines applied in the classification of variant pathogenecity provides a clear interpretation for physicians on the relevance of such findings.

Expanding the clinical, allelic, and locus heterogeneity of retinal dystrophies.

PURPOSE: Retinal dystrophies (RD) are heterogeneous hereditary disorders of the retina that are usually progressive in nature. The aim of this study was to clinically and molecularly characterize a large cohort of RD patients. METHODS: We have developed a next-generation sequencing assay that allows known RD genes to be sequenced simultaneously. We also performed mapping studies and exome sequencing on familial and on syndromic RD patients who tested negative on the panel. RESULTS: Our panel identified the likely causal mutation in >60% of the 292 RD families tested. Mapping studies on all 162 familial RD patients who tested negative on the panel identified two novel disease loci on Chr2:25,550,180-28,794,007 and Chr16:59,225,000-72,511,000. Whole-exome sequencing revealed the likely candidate as AGBL5 and CDH16, respectively. We also performed exome sequencing on negative syndromic RD cases and identified a novel homozygous truncating mutation in GNS in a family with the novel combination of mucopolysaccharidosis and RD. Moreover, we identified a homozygous truncating mutation in DNAJC17 in a family with an apparently novel syndrome of retinitis pigmentosa and hypogammaglobulinemia. CONCLUSION: Our study expands the clinical and allelic spectrum of known RD genes, and reveals AGBL5, CDH16, and DNAJC17 as novel disease candidates.Genet Med 18 6, 554-562.