TY - JOUR
T1 - The diagnostic efficacy of exome data analysis using fixed neurodevelopmental gene lists
T2 - Implications for prenatal setting
AU - Sukenik-Halevy, Rivka
AU - Ruhrman-Shahar, Noa
AU - Orenstein, Naama
AU - Gonzaga-Jauregui, Claudia
AU - Shuldiner, Alan R.
AU - Magal, Nurit
AU - Hagari, Ofir
AU - Azulay, Noy
AU - Lidzbarsky, Gabriel A.
AU - Bazak, Lily
AU - Basel-Salmon, Lina
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Objective: Laboratories performing prenatal exome sequencing (ES) frequently limit analysis to predetermined gene lists. We used a diagnostic postnatal ES cohort to assess how many of the genes diagnosed are not included in a number of select fixed lists used for prenatal diagnosis. Methods: Of 601 postnatal ES tests, pathogenic variants related to neurodevelopmental disorders were detected in 138 probands. We evaluated if causative genes were present in the following: (1) Developmental Disorders Genotype–Phenotype database list, (2) a commercial laboratory list for prenatal ES, (3) the PanelApp fetal anomalies panel, and (4) a published list used for prenatal diagnosis by ES (Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes study). Results: The percentages of cases where the diagnosed gene was not included in the selected four lists were; 11.6%, 17.24%, 23.2%, and 10.9%, respectively. In 13/138 (9.4%) cases, the causative gene was not included in any of the lists; in 4/13 (∼30%) cases noninclusion was explained by a relatively recent discovery of gene–phenotype association. Conclusions: A significant number of genes related to neurocognitive phenotypes are not included in some of the lists used for prenatal ES data interpretation. These are not only genes related to recently discovered disorders, but also genes with well-established gene–phenotype.
AB - Objective: Laboratories performing prenatal exome sequencing (ES) frequently limit analysis to predetermined gene lists. We used a diagnostic postnatal ES cohort to assess how many of the genes diagnosed are not included in a number of select fixed lists used for prenatal diagnosis. Methods: Of 601 postnatal ES tests, pathogenic variants related to neurodevelopmental disorders were detected in 138 probands. We evaluated if causative genes were present in the following: (1) Developmental Disorders Genotype–Phenotype database list, (2) a commercial laboratory list for prenatal ES, (3) the PanelApp fetal anomalies panel, and (4) a published list used for prenatal diagnosis by ES (Prenatal Assessment of Genomes and Exomes study). Results: The percentages of cases where the diagnosed gene was not included in the selected four lists were; 11.6%, 17.24%, 23.2%, and 10.9%, respectively. In 13/138 (9.4%) cases, the causative gene was not included in any of the lists; in 4/13 (∼30%) cases noninclusion was explained by a relatively recent discovery of gene–phenotype association. Conclusions: A significant number of genes related to neurocognitive phenotypes are not included in some of the lists used for prenatal ES data interpretation. These are not only genes related to recently discovered disorders, but also genes with well-established gene–phenotype.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103414272&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/pd.5929
DO - 10.1002/pd.5929
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 33686681
AN - SCOPUS:85103414272
SN - 0197-3851
VL - 41
SP - 701
EP - 707
JO - Prenatal Diagnosis
JF - Prenatal Diagnosis
IS - 6
ER -