Purpose:We aimed to demonstrate the detection of exonic deletions using target capture and deep sequencing data.Methods:Sequence data from target gene capture followed by massively parallel sequencing were analyzed for the detection of exonic deletions using the normalized mean coverage of individual exons. We compared the results with those obtained from high-density exon-targeted array comparative genomic hybridization and applied similar analysis to examine samples from patients with pathogenic exonic deletions.Results:Thirty-eight samples, each containing 2,134, 2,833, or 4,688 coding exons from different panels, with a total of 103,863 exons, were analyzed by capture–massively parallel sequencing and array comparative genomic hybridization. Ten deletions detected by array comparative genomic hybridization were all detected by massively parallel sequencing, whereas only two of three duplications were detected. We were able to detect all pathogenic exonic deletions in 11 positive cases. Thirty-one exonic copy number changes from nine perspective clinical samples were also identified.Conclusion:Our results demonstrated the feasibility of using the same set of sequence data to detect both point mutations and exonic deletions, thus improving the diagnostic power of massively parallel sequencing–based assays.
Background
Although mosaic variation has been known to cause disease for decades, high-throughput sequencing technologies with the analytical sensitivity to consistently detect variants at reduced allelic fractions have only recently emerged as routine clinical diagnostic tests. To date, few systematic analyses of mosaic variants detected by diagnostic exome sequencing for diverse clinical indications have been performed.
Methods
To investigate the frequency, type, allelic fraction, and phenotypic consequences of clinically relevant somatic mosaic single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and characteristics of the corresponding genes, we retrospectively queried reported mosaic variants from a cohort of ~ 12,000 samples submitted for clinical exome sequencing (ES) at Baylor Genetics.
Results
We found 120 mosaic variants involving 107 genes, including 80 mosaic SNVs in proband samples and 40 in parental/grandparental samples. Average mosaic alternate allele fraction (AAF) detected in autosomes and in X-linked disease genes in females was 18.2% compared with 34.8% in X-linked disease genes in males. Of these mosaic variants, 74 variants (61.7%) were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic and 46 (38.3%) as variants of uncertain significance. Mosaic variants occurred in disease genes associated with autosomal dominant (AD) or AD/autosomal recessive (AR) (67/120, 55.8%), X-linked (33/120, 27.5%), AD/somatic (10/120, 8.3%), and AR (8/120, 6.7%) inheritance. Of note, 1.7% (2/120) of variants were found in genes in which only somatic events have been described. Nine genes had recurrent mosaic events in unrelated individuals which accounted for 18.3% (22/120) of all detected mosaic variants in this study. The proband group was enriched for mosaicism affecting Ras signaling pathway genes.
Conclusions
In sum, an estimated 1.5% of all molecular diagnoses made in this cohort could be attributed to a mosaic variant detected in the proband, while parental mosaicism was identified in 0.3% of families analyzed. As ES design favors breadth over depth of coverage, this estimate of the prevalence of mosaic variants likely represents an underestimate of the total number of clinically relevant mosaic variants in our cohort.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1186/s13073-019-0658-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.