The Refined Recurrence Risk of De Novo variants Due to Parental Mosaicism
Neuser, S.; Ahmad, N.; Popp, D.; Hentschel, J.; Lemke, J. R.; Krohn, K.; Schween, A.-L.; Karnstedt, M.; Drukewitz, S.; Wiedenhoeft, J.; Abou Jamra, R.
Show abstract
Parents of children with genetic disorders due to de novo variants are counselled on a recurrence risk estimate of 1-5% for further affected siblings, while the actual probability varies between 0 and 50%. This discrepancy is well known, but barely investigated. We enrolled 135 families, in which a child had been previously identified with a pathogenic seemingly de novo variant (in 140 genes). Covering two germ layers, we collected blood (n=269), buccal (n=223) and nail samples (n=223) of both parents and paternal semen (n=88). Using Nanopore long read sequencing, variants were phased to the parental allele of origin. We performed deep sequencing with unique molecular identifiers of all samples. We investigated for low mosaicism with plotting identified allele fractions and Bayesian analyses. We confirmed the results individually using amplicon-based, spiked-in deep sequencing. Phasing revealed 22% of variants have occurred on the maternal and 78% on the paternal allele. Median raw target read depth achieved >7,000x, reduced to 523x after collapsing across all tissues (n{approx}130,000 measured values). We identified mosaicism in either the mother (n=2) or the father (n=4): four of them as mixed mosaicism, two cases as paternal gonadal mosaicism. The alternative allele fraction varied from 1.1% to 23%, while the results of the Bayesian model correlated well with amplicon-based sequencing. With 4.4%, we observe a slightly lower number of parental mosaicism compared to the literature. We now apply the amplicon-based sequencing of tissue samples - including semen - to routine counselling of parents with an affected child for individual risk assessment.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Exome copy number variant detection, analysis and classification in a large cohort of families with undiagnosed rare genetic disease 96%
- Identification of actionable genetic variants in 4,198 Scottish volunteers from the Viking Genes research cohort and implementation of return of results 95%
- The impact of 22q11.2 copy number variants on human traits in the general population 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Importance of Automation in Genetic Diagnosis: Lessons from Analyzing an Inherited Retinal Degeneration Cohort with the Mendelian Analysis Toolkit (MATK) 96%
- Assessment of the variant prioritisation strategy for genomic newborn screening in the Generation Study 96%
- Genome Alert!: a standardized procedure for genomic variant reinterpretation and automated genotype-phenotype reassessment in clinical routine 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Re-evaluation and Re-analysis of 152 research exomes five years after the initial report reveals clinically relevant changes in 20% 97%
- BCL11A intellectual developmental disorder: defining the clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations 95%
- Structural variant calling and clinical interpretation in 6224 unsolved rare disease exomes 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exome sequencing as a first-tier test for copy number variant detection : retrospective evaluation and prospective screening in 2418 cases 95%
- Assessing performance of pathogenicity predictors using clinically-relevant variant datasets 95%
- A comparative medical genomics approach may facilitate the interpretation of rare missense variation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Genetic Diagnosis of Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy Type 1 Using Rare Variant Linkage Analysis and Long Read Genome Sequencing 96%
- 3-hour genome sequencing and targeted analysis to rapidly assess genetic risk 94%
- Detection and characterisation of copy number variants from exome sequencing in the DDD study 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.