Abstract
Genome sequencing is now available as a clinical test on the National Health Service (NHS) through the Genome Medicine Service (GMS). The GMS have set out an analytical strategy that predominantly filters genome data on a pre-selected gene panel(s). Whilst this approach reduces the number of variants requiring assessment by reporting laboratories, pathogenic variants outside of the gene panel applied may be missed, and candidate variants in novel genes are largely ignored.
This study sought to compare a research exome analysis to an independent clinical genome analysis performed through the NHS for the same group of patients. When analysing the exome data, we applied a panel agnostic approach filtering for variants with High Pathogenic Potential (HiPPo) using ClinVar, allele frequency, and in silico prediction tools. We then compared this gene agnostic analysis to the panel-based approach as applied by the GMS to genome data. Later we restricted HiPPo variants to a panel of the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) morbid genes and compared the diagnostic yield with the variants filtered using the GMS strategy.
24 patients from 8 families underwent parallel research exome sequencing and GMS genome sequencing. HiPPo analysis applied to research exome data identified a similar number of variants as the gene panel-based approach applied by the GMS. GMS clinical genome analysis identified and returned 2 pathogenic variants and 3 variants of uncertain significance. HiPPo research exome analysis identified the same variants plus an additional pathogenic variant and a further 3 de novo variants of uncertain significance in novel genes, where case series and functional studies are underway. When HiPPo was restricted to GenCC disease genes (strong or definitive), the same pathogenic variants were identified yet statistically fewer variants required assessment to identify more diagnostic variants than reported by the GMS genome strategy. This gave a diagnostic rate per variant assessed of 20% for HiPPo restricted to GenCC versus 3% for the GMS panel-based approach. With plans to sequence 5 million more NHS patients, strategies are needed to optimise the full potential of genome data beyond gene panels whilst minimising the burden of variants that require clinical assessment.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
EGS was supported by the Kerkut Charitable Trust, Foulkes Fellowship, and University of Southampton's Presidential Scholarship Award; HLR and AO'D-L and sequencing were supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant U01HG011755 as part of the GREGoR consortium and HR by NHGRI R01HG009141. DB was generously supported by a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship RP-2016-07-011.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study participants were recruited to the study 'Use of NGS technologies for resolving clinical phenotypes' (IRAS: 212945). Ethics committee of Yorkshire and The Humber - Leeds East Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval for this work. Research Ethics Committee reference number: 17/YH/0069. The sponsor for the study is University Hospital of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (Protocol number: RHM NEU0302). All patients consented for the data herein to be shared.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Ethics and consent Study participants were recruited to the study ‘Use of NGS technologies for resolving clinical phenotypes’ (IRAS: 212945). Ethics committee of Yorkshire and The Humber – Leeds East Research Ethics Committee gave ethical approval for this work. Research Ethics Committee reference number: 17/YH/0069. The sponsor for the study is University Hospital of Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (Protocol number: RHM NEU0302). All patients consented for the data herein to be shared.
Competing interests No competing interest or conflicts to declare
Funding EGS was supported by the Kerkut Charitable Trust, Foulkes Fellowship, and University of Southampton’s Presidential Scholarship Award; HLR and AO’D-L and sequencing were supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant U01HG011755 as part of the GREGoR consortium and HR by NHGRI R01HG009141. DB was generously supported by a National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Research Professorship RP-2016-07-011.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
