- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Inborn genetic diseases"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A dyadic approach to the delineation of diagnostic entities in clinical genomics(Cell Press, 2021-01-07) Biesecker, Leslie G.; Adam, Margaret P.; Alkuraya, Fowzan S.; Amemiya, Anne R.; Bamshad, Michael J.; Beck, Anita E.; Bennett, James T.; Bird, Lynne M.; Carey, John C.; Chung, Brian; Clark, Robin D.; Cox, Timothy C.; Curry, Cynthia; Palko Dinulos, Mary Beth; Dobyns, William B.; Giampietro, Philip F.; Girisha, Katta M.; Glass, Ian A.; Graham, John M., Jr.; Gripp, Karen W.; Haldeman-Englert, Chad R.; Hall, Bryan D.; Innes, A. Micheil; Kalish, Jennifer M.; Keppler-Noreuil, Kim M.; Kosaki, Kenjiro; Kozel, Beth A.; Mirzaa, Ghayda M.; Mulvihill, John J.; Nowaczyk, Malgorzata J.M.; Pagon, Roberta A.; Retterer, Kyle; Rope, Alan F.; Sanchez-Lara, Pedro A.; Seaver, Laurie H.; Shieh, Joseph T.; Slavotinek, Anne M.; Sobering, Andrew K.; Stevens, Cathy A.; Stevenson, David A.; Tan, Tiong Yang; Tan, Wen-Hann; Tsai, Anne C.; Weaver, David D.; Williams, Marc S.; Zackai, Elaine; Zarate, Yuri A.; Medical and Molecular Genetics, School of MedicineThe delineation of disease entities is complex, yet recent advances in the molecular characterization of diseases provide opportunities to designate diseases in a biologically valid manner. Here, we have formalized an approach to the delineation of Mendelian genetic disorders that encompasses two distinct but inter-related concepts: (1) the gene that is mutated and (2) the phenotypic descriptor, preferably a recognizably distinct phenotype. We assert that only by a combinatorial or dyadic approach taking both of these attributes into account can a unitary, distinct genetic disorder be designated. We propose that all Mendelian disorders should be designated as "GENE-related phenotype descriptor" (e.g., "CFTR-related cystic fibrosis"). This approach to delineating and naming disorders reconciles the complexity of gene-to-phenotype relationships in a simple and clear manner yet communicates the complexity and nuance of these relationships.Item Rapid Whole-Genomic Sequencing and a Targeted Neonatal Gene Panel in Infants With a Suspected Genetic Disorder(American Medical Association, 2023) Maron, Jill L.; Kingsmore, Stephen; Gelb, Bruce D.; Vockley, Jerry; Wigby, Kristen; Bragg, Jennifer; Stroustrup, Annemarie; Poindexter, Brenda; Suhrie, Kristen; Kim, Jae H.; Diacovo, Thomas; Powell, Cynthia M.; Trembath, Andrea; Guidugli, Lucia; Ellsworth, Katarzyna A.; Reed, Dallas; Kurfiss, Anne; Breeze, Janis L.; Trinquart, Ludovic; Davis, Jonathan M.; Pediatrics, School of MedicineImportance: Genomic testing in infancy guides medical decisions and can improve health outcomes. However, it is unclear whether genomic sequencing or a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test provides comparable molecular diagnostic yields and times to return of results. Objective: To compare outcomes of genomic sequencing with those of a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test. Design, setting, and participants: The Genomic Medicine for Ill Neonates and Infants (GEMINI) study was a prospective, comparative, multicenter study of 400 hospitalized infants younger than 1 year of age (proband) and their parents, when available, suspected of having a genetic disorder. The study was conducted at 6 US hospitals from June 2019 to November 2021. Exposure: Enrolled participants underwent simultaneous testing with genomic sequencing and a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test. Each laboratory performed an independent interpretation of variants guided by knowledge of the patient's phenotype and returned results to the clinical care team. Change in clinical management, therapies offered, and redirection of care was provided to families based on genetic findings from either platform. Main outcomes and measures: Primary end points were molecular diagnostic yield (participants with ≥1 pathogenic variant or variant of unknown significance), time to return of results, and clinical utility (changes in patient care). Results: A molecular diagnostic variant was identified in 51% of participants (n = 204; 297 variants identified with 134 being novel). Molecular diagnostic yield of genomic sequencing was 49% (95% CI, 44%-54%) vs 27% (95% CI, 23%-32%) with the targeted gene-sequencing test. Genomic sequencing did not report 19 variants found by the targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test; the targeted gene-sequencing test did not report 164 variants identified by genomic sequencing as diagnostic. Variants unidentified by the targeted genomic-sequencing test included structural variants longer than 1 kilobase (25.1%) and genes excluded from the test (24.6%) (McNemar odds ratio, 8.6 [95% CI, 5.4-14.7]). Variant interpretation by laboratories differed by 43%. Median time to return of results was 6.1 days for genomic sequencing and 4.2 days for the targeted genomic-sequencing test; for urgent cases (n = 107) the time was 3.3 days for genomic sequencing and 4.0 days for the targeted gene-sequencing test. Changes in clinical care affected 19% of participants, and 76% of clinicians viewed genomic testing as useful or very useful in clinical decision-making, irrespective of a diagnosis. Conclusions and relevance: The molecular diagnostic yield for genomic sequencing was higher than a targeted neonatal gene-sequencing test, but the time to return of routine results was slower. Interlaboratory variant interpretation contributes to differences in molecular diagnostic yield and may have important consequences for clinical management.Item Use of amplicon-based sequencing for testing fetal identity and monogenic traits with Single Circulating Trophoblast (SCT) as one form of cell-based NIPT(PLOS, 2021-04-15) Zhuo, Xinming; Wang, Qun; Vossaert, Liesbeth; Salman, Roseen; Kim, Adriel; Van den Veyver, Ignatia; Breman, Amy; Beaudet, Arthur; Medical and Molecular Genetics, School of MedicineA major challenge for cell-based non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) is to distinguish individual presumptive fetal cells from maternal cells in female pregnancies. We have sought a rapid, robust, versatile, and low-cost next-generation sequencing method to facilitate this process. Toward this goal, single isolated cells underwent whole genome amplification prior to genotyping. Multiple highly polymorphic genomic regions (including HLA-A and HLA-B) with 10-20 very informative single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within a 200 bp interval were amplified with a modified method based on other publications. To enhance the power of cell identification, approximately 40 Human Identification SNP (Applied Biosystems) test amplicons were also utilized. Using SNP results to compare to sex chromosome data from NGS as a reliable standard, the true positive rate for genotyping was 83.4%, true negative 6.6%, false positive 3.3%, and false negative 6.6%. These results would not be sufficient for clinical diagnosis, but they demonstrate the general validity of the approach and suggest that deeper genotyping of single cells could be completely reliable. A paternal DNA sample is not required using this method. The assay also successfully detected pathogenic variants causing Tay Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and hemoglobinopathies in single lymphoblastoid cells, and disease-causing variants in three cell-based NIPT cases. This method could be applicable for any monogenic diagnosis.