Features Influencing Diagnostic Yield of Exome Sequencing in the DECIPHERD Study in Chile
Moreno, G.; Rebolledo-Jaramillo, B.; Böhme, D.; Encina, G.; Martin, L. M.; Zavala, M. J.; Espinosa, F.; Hasbun, M. T.; Poli, M. C.; Faundes, V.; Repetto, G. M.
Show abstract
BackgroundExome sequencing (ES) has become a key diagnostic tool for rare diseases (RDs). However, most evidence on ES performance comes from high-income countries and patients from European ancestry. In countries such as Chile, limited access to next generation sequencing amplifies health disparities and highlights the need to identify which patients are most likely to benefit from ES. MethodsThis study presents the second phase of the Chilean DECIPHERD project, in which we performed ES in a new group of patients with RDs presenting with multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), and/or suspected inborn errors of immunity. To identify clinical and demographic factors associated with an increased probability of obtaining an informative ES result, we conducted a logistic regression analysis, combining the results of the first and second phases of the project. We also objectively evaluated global ancestry measured using ADMIXTURE, as a potential factor. ResultsSixty-seven patients participated in this second phase of DECIPHERD with a median age of 6 years (range: 0-27); 55.2% were female, with an average ({+/-} s.d.) proportion of Native American ancestry of 0.615 {+/-} 0.18. Clinically, 52.2% presented with both MCA and NDD, and the rest had other phenotype combinations. An informative result, including pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in genes consistent with the patients phenotype, was identified in 34.3% of the cohort; 61% of these variants had not been previously reported in databases such as ClinVar. By combining the two phases of the study, we reached a total of 167 patients, in whom the presence of NDD and/or MCA significantly increased the probability of achieving an informative ES outcome. In contrast, previous use of gene panel testing was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving an informative result. Ancestry was not associated with diagnostic yield. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the utility of ES in achieving a diagnosis in a clinically diverse cohort of Chilean patients with RDs, and characterized features associated with a higher diagnostic yield. These findings may contribute to evidence-based patient prioritization strategies in settings with limited access to NGS resources.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of optical genome mapping in clinical genetic testing of facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy 95%
- Variability in gene expression is associated with incomplete penetrance in inherited eye disorders 94%
- Characterization of the common genetic variation in the Spanish population of Navarre 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical description, molecular delineation and genotype-phenotype correlation in 340 patients with KBG syndrome: Addition of 67 new patients 94%
- Advancing in Schaaf-Yang syndrome pathophysiology: from bedside to subcellular analyses of truncated MAGEL2 94%
- Cerebral Visual Impairment: genetic diagnoses and phenotypic associations 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Next-generation phenotyping in Nigerian children with Cornelia de Lange Syndrome 94%
- Resolving the diagnostic odyssey in inherited retinal dystrophies through long-read genome sequencing 94%
- Known pathogenic gene variants and new candidates detected in Sudden Unexpected Infant Death using Whole Genome Sequencing 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- BCL11A intellectual developmental disorder: defining the clinical spectrum and genotype-phenotype correlations 94%
- Structural variant calling and clinical interpretation in 6224 unsolved rare disease exomes 93%
- Re-evaluation and Re-analysis of 152 research exomes five years after the initial report reveals clinically relevant changes in 20% 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.