A Post‐Hoc Comparison of the Utility of Sanger Sequencing and Exome Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Heterogeneous Diseases

The advent of massive parallel sequencing is rapidly changing the strategies employed for the genetic diagnosis and research of rare diseases that involve a large number of genes. So far it is not clear whether these approaches perform significantly better than conventional single gene testing as requested by clinicians. The current yield of this traditional diagnostic approach depends on a complex of factors that include gene‐specific phenotype traits, and the relative frequency of the involvement of specific genes. To gauge the impact of the paradigm shift that is occurring in molecular diagnostics, we assessed traditional Sanger‐based sequencing (in 2011) and exome sequencing followed by targeted bioinformatics analysis (in 2012) for five different conditions that are highly heterogeneous, and for which our center provides molecular diagnosis. We find that exome sequencing has a much higher diagnostic yield than Sanger sequencing for deafness, blindness, mitochondrial disease, and movement disorders. For microsatellite‐stable colorectal cancer, this was low under both strategies. Even if all genes that could have been ordered by physicians had been tested, the larger number of genes captured by the exome would still have led to a clearly superior diagnostic yield at a fraction of the cost.

[1]  Steven Henikoff,et al.  SIFT: predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  De novo mutations of SETBP1 cause Schinzel-Giedion syndrome , 2010, Nature Genetics.

[3]  Thomas L. Casavant,et al.  First Exons and Introns - A Survey of GC Content and Gene Structure in the Human Genome , 2006, Silico Biol..

[4]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  Unlocking Mendelian disease using exome sequencing , 2011, Genome Biology.

[5]  P. Bork,et al.  A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations , 2010, Nature Methods.

[6]  B. V. van Bon,et al.  Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[7]  Vineet Bafna,et al.  Exome Sequencing Can Improve Diagnosis and Alter Patient Management , 2012, Science Translational Medicine.

[8]  Juliane C. Dohm,et al.  Substantial biases in ultra-short read data sets from high-throughput DNA sequencing , 2008, Nucleic acids research.

[9]  Shunsuke Kato,et al.  Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods , 2006, Nucleic acids research.

[10]  K. Pollard,et al.  Detection of nonneutral substitution rates on mammalian phylogenies. , 2010, Genome research.

[11]  H. Brunner,et al.  Is early‐onset microsatellite and chromosomally stable colorectal cancer a hallmark of a genetic susceptibility syndrome? , 2008, International journal of cancer.

[12]  John Broxholme,et al.  Next-generation sequencing (NGS) as a diagnostic tool for retinal degeneration reveals a much higher detection rate in early-onset disease , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[13]  Emily H Turner,et al.  Exome sequencing identifies MLL2 mutations as a cause of Kabuki syndrome , 2010, Nature Genetics.

[14]  J. Schuurs-Hoeijmakers,et al.  Mutations in the phospholipid remodeling gene SERAC1 impair mitochondrial function and intracellular cholesterol trafficking and cause dystonia and deafness , 2012, Nature Genetics.

[15]  Kelly Schoch,et al.  Clinical application of exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic conditions , 2012, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[16]  Quinten Waisfisz,et al.  Best Practice Guidelines for the Use of Next‐Generation Sequencing Applications in Genome Diagnostics: A National Collaborative Study of Dutch Genome Diagnostic Laboratories , 2013, Human mutation.

[17]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  Next-generation genetic testing for retinitis pigmentosa , 2012, Human mutation.

[18]  J. Shendure,et al.  Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery , 2011, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[19]  Heikki Joensuu,et al.  Comparison of solution-based exome capture methods for next generation sequencing , 2011, Genome Biology.

[20]  B. J. Klevering,et al.  Outcome of ABCA4 microarray screening in routine clinical practice , 2009, Molecular vision.

[21]  Muin J Khoury,et al.  Deploying whole genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: Meeting the challenge one bin at a time , 2011, Genetics in Medicine.

[22]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  Massively parallel sequencing of ataxia genes after array‐based enrichment , 2010, Human mutation.

[23]  A. Zharkikh,et al.  Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral , 2005, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[24]  L. Vreede,et al.  Germline mutations in the spindle assembly checkpoint genes BUB1 and BUB3 are risk factors for colorectal cancer. , 2013, Gastroenterology.

[25]  Hugo Y. K. Lam,et al.  Performance comparison of exome DNA sequencing technologies , 2011, Nature Biotechnology.

[26]  Christian Gilissen,et al.  Disease gene identification strategies for exome sequencing , 2012, European Journal of Human Genetics.

[27]  T. Hirose,et al.  Mutations in ABCR (ABCA4) in patients with Stargardt macular degeneration or cone-rod degeneration. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[28]  Peter Donnelly,et al.  Germline mutations affecting the proofreading domains of POLE and POLD1 predispose to colorectal adenomas and carcinomas , 2013, Nature Genetics.