Clinical deep sequencing to diagnose pathogenic mosaic variants in malformations of cortical development and epilepsy
Stone, K.; Prinzing, G.; Lai, A.; Smith, L.; Sheidley, B. R.; Corliss, M. M.; Bowling, K.; Cao, Y.; Wiltrout, K.; Stone, S. S. D.; Lidov, H.; Yang, E.; Poduri, A.; D'Gama, A. M.
Show abstract
Background and Objectives: Deep sequencing of brain tissue in the research setting has established that mosaic variants are a major cause of malformations of cortical development (MCDs) and epilepsy. However, genetic testing in the clinical setting primarily detects germline variants using clinically accessible samples. We aimed to determine the diagnostic yield and clinical utility of deep sequencing in the clinical setting to identify pathogenic mosaic variants for this population. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of individuals at Boston Children's Hospital with MCDs with or without epilepsy who received clinical deep sequencing between September 2017 and February 2026. Demographic, clinical, and genetic testing data were abstracted from the medical record. For individuals without systemic features, we classified brain tissue as an affected tissue sample. For individuals with systemic features, we classified brain or relevant non-brain tissue as affected. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of clinical deep sequencing performed using affected vs unaffected tissue samples. The secondary outcome was the clinical utility of genetic diagnoses. Results: Our cohort included 37 individuals (19/37 (51%) female, 18/37 (49%) male) with MCDs, of whom 35/37 (95%) had epilepsy (25 with brain tissue samples available from epilepsy surgery) and 8/37 (22%) had systemic features. Most (35/37 (95%)) had dysplasia phenotypes on MRI and 12/27 (44%) with pathology available had Focal Cortical Dysplasia Type I or II. The diagnostic yield was 53% (17/32; 16 mosaic and 1 germline variant) when clinical deep sequencing was performed using an affected tissue sample vs 0% (0/6) using an unaffected tissue sample (p=0.016). Of the diagnosed cases, 13/17 (76%) had testing performed on brain tissue (1 with systemic features) and 4/17 (24%) on non-brain tissue (3 buccal and 1 duodenal tissue, all with systemic features). All but one diagnosis involved the mTOR pathway. All diagnoses had clinical utility. Discussion: Clinical deep sequencing, when performed using an affected tissue sample, has high diagnostic yield and clinical utility for individuals with MCDs, especially dysplasia phenotypes, and epilepsy. Our findings support implementation of clinical deep sequencing for this population, especially as the genetic diagnoses have implications for emerging precision therapies.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical sequencing yield in epilepsy, autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual disability:A systematic review and meta-analysis 94%
- Underutilization of Syndrome-Specific ICD-10 Codes for Genetic Epilepsies: Implications for Precision Medicine 93%
- Penetrance of pathogenic epilepsy variants is low and shaped by common genetic background 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of common PI3K-AKT-MTOR mutations in pediatric surgical epilepsy by droplet digital PCR reveals novel clinical and molecular insights 94%
- Somatic mutation involving diverse genes leads to a spectrum of focal cortical malformations 94%
- The genomic landscape across 474 surgically accessible epileptogenic human brain lesions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Structural mapping of GABRB3 variants reveals genotype-phenotype correlations 94%
- Clinical signatures of genetic epilepsy precede diagnosis in electronic medical records of 32,000 individuals 94%
- Heterogeneity of comprehensive clinical phenotype and longitudinal adaptive function and correlation with computational predictions of severity of missense genotypes in KIF1A-associated neurological disorder 92%
"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.