1932

Abstract

Genetic testing has undergone a revolution in the last decade, particularly with the advent of next-generation sequencing and its associated reductions in costs and increases in efficiencies. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) has been a leader in the application of such genomic testing for rare disease diagnosis. This review discusses the current state of genomic testing performed within the UDN, with a focus on the strengths and limitations of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing in clinical diagnostics and the importance of ongoing data reanalysis. The role of emerging technologies such as RNA and long-read sequencing to further improve diagnostic rates in the UDN is also described. This review concludes with a discussion of the challenges faced in insurance coverage of comprehensive genomic testing as well as the opportunities for a larger role of testing in clinical medicine.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-042120-014904
2022-01-27
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/med/73/1/annurev-med-042120-014904.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-042120-014904&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Gahl WA, Wise AL, Ashley EA. 2015. The Undiagnosed Diseases Network of the National Institutes of Health: a national extension. JAMA 314:171797–98
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Tifft CJ, Adams DR. 2014. The National Institutes of Health Undiagnosed Diseases Program. Curr. Opin. Pediatr. 26:6626–33
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Gahl WA, Tifft CJ. 2011. The NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Program: lessons learned. JAMA 305:181904–5
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Splinter K, Adams DR, Bacino CA et al. 2018. Effect of genetic diagnosis on patients with previously undiagnosed disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 379:222131–39
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Metzker ML. 2010. Sequencing technologies—the next generation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11:131–46
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Slatko BE, Gardner AF, Ausubel FM. 2018. Overview of next-generation sequencing technologies. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 122:1e59
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium 2004. Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome. Nature 431:7011931–45
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Natl. Hum. Genome Res. Inst 2020. DNA Sequencing Costs: Data NHGRI, Bethesda, MD. https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/DNA-Sequencing-Costs-Data
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Collins FS, Varmus H. 2015. A new initiative on precision medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 372:9793–95
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Malinowski J, Miller DT, Demmer L et al. 2020. Systematic evidence-based review: outcomes from exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability. Genet. Med. 22:6986–1004
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Hershberger RE, Givertz MM, Ho CY et al. 2018. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy: a clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 20:9899–909
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    eMERGE Consortium 2019. Harmonizing clinical sequencing and interpretation for the eMERGE III Network. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105:3588–605
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Denny JC, Rutter JL, Goldstein DB et al. 2019. The “All of Us” research program. N. Engl. J. Med 381:7668–76
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Posey JE, Rosenfeld JA, James RA et al. 2016. Molecular diagnostic experience of whole-exome sequencing in adult patients. Genet. Med. 18:7678–85
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Yang Y, Muzny DM, Xia F et al. 2014. Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA 312:181870–79
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Clark MM, Stark Z, Farnaes L et al. 2018. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing and chromosomal microarray in children with suspected genetic diseases. NPJ Genom. Med. 3:16
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Lionel AC, Costain G, Monfared N et al. 2018. Improved diagnostic yield compared with targeted gene sequencing panels suggests a role for whole-genome sequencing as a first-tier genetic test. Genet. Med. 20:4435–43
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Gilissen C, Hehir-Kwa JY, Thung DT et al. 2014. Genome sequencing identifies major causes of severe intellectual disability. Nature 511:7509344–47
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Kingsmore SF, Cakici JA, Clark MM et al. 2019. A randomized, controlled trial of the analytic and diagnostic performance of singleton and trio, rapid genome and exome sequencing in ill infants. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105:4719–33
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Bertoli-Avella AM, Beetz C, Ameziane N et al. 2021. Successful application of genome sequencing in a diagnostic setting: 1007 index cases from a clinically heterogeneous cohort. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 29:1141–53
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Dolzhenko E, van Vugt JJFA, Shaw RJ et al. 2017. Detection of long repeat expansions from PCR-free whole-genome sequence data. Genome Res 27:111895–903
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Chen X, Schulz-Trieglaff O, Shaw R et al. 2016. Manta: rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications. Bioinformatics 32:81220–22
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Murdock DR, Dai H, Burrage LC et al. 2021. Transcriptome-directed analysis for Mendelian disease diagnosis overcomes limitations of conventional genomic testing. J. Clin. Investig. 131:1e141500
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Burdick KJ, Cogan JD, Rives LC et al. 2020. Limitations of exome sequencing in detecting rare and undiagnosed diseases. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 182:61400–6
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Schoch K, Esteves C, Bican A et al. 2021. Clinical sites of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network: unique contributions to genomic medicine and science. Genet. Med. 23:2259–71
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Rady Children's Inst. Genom. Med 2021. The evidence is in: Project Baby Bear. Rady Children's Institute for Genomic Medicine https://www.radygenomics.org/our-work/project-baby-bear/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S et al. 2015. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. 17:5405–24
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Karam R, Conner B, LaDuca H et al. 2019. Assessment of diagnostic outcomes of RNA genetic testing for hereditary cancer. JAMA Netw. Open 2:10e1913900
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Frésard L, Smail C, Ferraro NM et al. 2019. Identification of rare-disease genes using blood transcriptome sequencing and large control cohorts. Nat. Med. 25:6911–19
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Lee H, Huang AY, Wang L-K et al. 2020. Diagnostic utility of transcriptome sequencing for rare Mendelian diseases. Genet. Med. 22:3490–99
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Kremer LS, Bader DM, Mertes C et al. 2017. Genetic diagnosis of Mendelian disorders via RNA sequencing. Nat. Commun. 8:15824
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Moles-Fernández A, Duran-Lozano L, Montalban G et al. 2018. Computational tools for splicing defect prediction in breast/ovarian cancer genes: How efficient are they at predicting RNA alterations?. Front. Genet. 9:366
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Wai HA, Lord J, Lyon M et al. 2020. Blood RNA analysis can increase clinical diagnostic rate and resolve variants of uncertain significance. Genet. Med. 22:61005–14
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Gonorazky HD, Naumenko S, Ramani AK et al. 2019. Expanding the boundaries of RNA sequencing as a diagnostic tool for rare Mendelian disease. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104:51007
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Cummings BB, Marshall JL, Tukiainen T et al. 2017. Improving genetic diagnosis in Mendelian disease with transcriptome sequencing. Sci. Transl. Med. 9:386eaal5209
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Aicher JK, Jewell P, Vaquero-Garcia J et al. 2020. Mapping RNA splicing variations in clinically accessible and nonaccessible tissues to facilitate Mendelian disease diagnosis using RNA-seq. Genet. Med. 22:71181–90
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Amberger JS, Bocchini CA, Schiettecatte F et al. 2015. OMIM.org: Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM®), an online catalog of human genes and genetic disorders. Nucleic Acids Res 43:Database issueD789–98
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Wenger AM, Guturu H, Bernstein JA et al. 2017. Systematic reanalysis of clinical exome data yields additional diagnoses: implications for providers. Genet. Med. 19:2209–14
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Cope H, Spillmann R, Rosenfeld JA et al. 2020. Missed diagnoses: clinically relevant lessons learned through medical mysteries solved by the Undiagnosed Diseases Network. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 8:10e1397
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Liu P, Meng L, Normand EA et al. 2019. Reanalysis of clinical exome sequencing data. N. Engl. J. Med. 380:252478–80
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Chiang T, Liu X, Wu T-J et al. 2019. Atlas-CNV: a validated approach to call single-exon CNVs in the eMERGESeq gene panel. Genet. Med. 21:92135–44
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Kelly MA, Caleshu C, Morales A et al. 2018. Adaptation and validation of the ACMG/AMP variant classification framework for MYH7-associated inherited cardiomyopathies: recommendations by ClinGen's Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel. Genet. Med. 20:3351–59
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Bodian DL, Kothiyal P, Hauser NS. 2019. Pitfalls of clinical exome and gene panel testing: alternative transcripts. Genet. Med. 21:51240–45
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Deignan JL, Chung WK, Kearney HM et al. 2019. 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. 21:61267–70
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Shashi V, Schoch K, Spillmann R et al. 2019. A comprehensive iterative approach is highly effective in diagnosing individuals who are exome negative. Genet. Med. 21:1161–72
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Mitsuhashi S, Matsumoto N. 2020. Long-read sequencing for rare human genetic diseases. J. Hum. Genet. 65:111–19
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Mandelker D, Schmidt RJ, Ankala A et al. 2016. Navigating highly homologous genes in a molecular diagnostic setting: a resource for clinical next-generation sequencing. Genet. Med. 18:121282–89
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Sedlazeck FJ, Lee H, Darby CA et al. 2018. Piercing the dark matter: bioinformatics of long-range sequencing and mapping. Nat. Rev. Genet. 19:6329–46
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Laver TW, Caswell RC, Moore KA et al. 2016. Pitfalls of haplotype phasing from amplicon-based long-read sequencing. Sci. Rep. 6:21746
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Sone J, Mitsuhashi S, Fujita A et al. 2019. Long-read sequencing identifies GGC repeat expansions in NOTCH2NLC associated with neuronal intranuclear inclusion disease. Nat. Genet. 51:81215–21
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    de Jesus AA, Hou Y, Brooks S et al. 2020. Distinct interferon signatures and cytokine patterns define additional systemic autoinflammatory diseases. J. Clin. Investig. 130:41669–82
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Zhang Y-Z, Akdemir A, Tremmel G et al. 2020. Nanopore basecalling from a perspective of instance segmentation. BMC Bioinform 21:Suppl. 3136
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K et al. 2017. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genet. Med. 19:8867–74
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Stark Z, Schofield D, Martyn M et al. 2019. Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Genet. Med. 21:1173–80
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Smith HS, Swint JM, Lalani SR et al. 2019. Clinical application of genome and exome sequencing as a diagnostic tool for pediatric patients: a scoping review of the literature. Genet. Med. 21:13–16
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Reuter CM, Kohler JN, Bonner D et al. 2019. Yield of whole exome sequencing in undiagnosed patients facing insurance coverage barriers to genetic testing. J. Genet. Couns. 28:61107–18
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Deverka PA, Kaufman D, McGuire AL. 2014. Overcoming the reimbursement barriers for clinical sequencing. JAMA 312:181857–58
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Sabo A, Murdock D, Dugan S et al. 2020. Community-based recruitment and exome sequencing indicates high diagnostic yield in adults with intellectual disability. Mol. Genet. Genom. Med. 8:10e1439
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Sweeney NM, Nahas SA, Chowdhury S et al. 2021. Rapid whole genome sequencing impacts care and resource utilization in infants with congenital heart disease. NPJ Genom. Med. 6:129
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Blue Shield Calif 2020. Blue Shield of California becomes first health plan in U.S. to cover cost of rapid Whole Genome Sequencing for critically ill children News Release, Mar. 9, Blue Shield Calif Oakland, CA: https://news.blueshieldca.com/2020/03/09/RADY-genomics
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Marshall DA et al. 2018. Methodological issues in assessing the economic value of next-generation sequencing tests: many challenges and not enough solutions. Value Health 21:91033–42
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Buchanan J, Wordsworth S, Schuh A 2013. Issues surrounding the health economic evaluation of genomic technologies. Pharmacogenomics 14:151833–47
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Smith HS, Swint JM, Lalani SR et al. 2020. Exome sequencing compared with standard genetic tests for critically ill infants with suspected genetic conditions. Genet. Med. 22:81303–10
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Smith HS, Russell HV, Lee BH et al. 2020. Using the Delphi method to identify clinicians’ perceived importance of pediatric exome sequencing results. Genet. Med. 22:69–76
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Pereira S, Robinson JO, Gutierrez AM et al. 2019. Perceived benefits, risks, and utility of newborn genomic sequencing in the BabySeq project. Pediatrics 143:Suppl. 1S6–13
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Pena LDM, Jiang Y-H, Schoch K et al. 2018. Looking beyond the exome: a phenotype-first approach to molecular diagnostic resolution in rare and undiagnosed diseases. Genet. Med. 20:4464–69
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Posey JE, Harel T, Liu P et al. 2017. Resolution of disease phenotypes resulting from multilocus genomic variation. N. Engl. J. Med. 376:121–31
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-042120-014904
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-042120-014904
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error