» Articles » PMID: 36357507

Five Years' Experience of the Clinical Exome Sequencing in a Spanish Single Center

Abstract

Nowadays, exome sequencing is a robust and cost-efficient genetic diagnostic tool already implemented in many clinical laboratories. Despite it has undoubtedly improved our diagnostic capacity and has allowed the discovery of many new Mendelian-disease genes, it only provides a molecular diagnosis in up to 25-30% of cases. Here, we comprehensively evaluate the results of a large sample set of 4974 clinical exomes performed in our laboratory over a period of 5 years, showing a global diagnostic rate of 24.62% (1391/4974). For the evaluation we establish different groups of diseases and demonstrate how the diagnostic rate is not only dependent on the analyzed group of diseases (43.12% in ophthalmological cases vs 16.61% in neurological cases) but on the specific disorder (47.49% in retinal dystrophies vs 24.02% in optic atrophy; 18.88% in neuropathies/paraparesias vs 11.43% in dementias). We also detail the most frequent mutated genes within each group of disorders and discuss, on our experience, further investigations and directions needed for the benefit of patients.

References
1.
Stankiewicz P, Lupski J . Structural variation in the human genome and its role in disease. Annu Rev Med. 2010; 61:437-55. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-med-100708-204735. View

2.
Iancu I, Perea-Romero I, Nunez-Moreno G, de la Fuente L, Romero R, Avila-Fernandez A . Aggregated Genomic Data as Cohort-Specific Allelic Frequencies can Boost Variants and Genes Prioritization in Non-Solved Cases of Inherited Retinal Dystrophies. Int J Mol Sci. 2022; 23(15). PMC: 9368980. DOI: 10.3390/ijms23158431. View

3.
Klopocki E, Mundlos S . Copy-number variations, noncoding sequences, and human phenotypes. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2011; 12:53-72. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-genom-082410-101404. View

4.
LaDuca H, Farwell K, Vuong H, Lu H, Mu W, Shahmirzadi L . Exome sequencing covers >98% of mutations identified on targeted next generation sequencing panels. PLoS One. 2017; 12(2):e0170843. PMC: 5289469. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170843. View

5.
Deignan J, Chung W, Kearney H, Monaghan K, Rehder C, Chao E . Points to consider in the reevaluation and reanalysis of genomic test results: a statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2019; 21(6):1267-1270. PMC: 6559819. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0478-1. View