Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Rare-ID: The First Neonate Diagnostic Approach Using Genome Sequencing for Complex Pediatric Cases in a Greek Cohort

Altmetrics

Downloads

104

Views

73

Comments

0

Yannis L. Loukas  *,
Katherine Anagnostopoulou,Georgia Thodi,
Maria Spanou,
Christos Gavalas,
Yannis Dotsikas
,
Maria Alvanou,
Roser Pons,
Konstantinos Tziouvas,Georgios Vartzelis,Eleni Skouteli,Eirini Loukatou,
Antonia Charitou,
Konstantinos Douros,
Soultana Siahanidou
,Melpomene Giorgi,
Artemis Theodora Stephanede,
Maria Angeli
,Maria Nikolaidou,Eleftheria Kokkinou,
Ioanna Kouri,Vasiliki Koute,
Argirios Dinopoulos

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

10 June 2024

Posted:

12 June 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Newborn screening using biochemical tests is a widespread practice. However, the recent availability of genetic sequencing has enabled the rapid screening of many monogenic disorders. The purpose of our study was to assess the outcomes of whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) as the primary newborn screening test. This cohort study enrolled 26 symptomatic neonates and infants exhibiting a spectrum of neurological symptoms and issues. Genome sequencing (GS) identified relevant diagnostic variants in 9 patients (point mutations, CNVs and one case of aneuploidy), suggesting that using GS as the primary newborn screening test in a general newborn population enhances traditional screening's detection capabilities. This evidence-based finding may support considering GS as a critical method for first-tier screening.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Life Sciences

1. Introduction

Newborn screening (NS) strives to detect treatable disorders before symptoms appear, enabling early medical intervention. NS involves muscle tone and hearing tests, heart and respiratory rates. However, the cornerstone of neonatal screening involves collecting a blood sample to detect various metabolic, hematologic, endocrine, and hereditary disorders. Ideally, this sample is obtained within 24-48 hours of birth[1]. Blood is typically drawn from the infant's heel and placed on a filter paper card for processing (Guthrie’s card)[2,3].
NS originated in the 1960s with the introduction of screening for phenylketonuria (PKU), which became widely implemented by the 1970s. In 1968, long before the era of modern genetic testing, Wilson and Jungner published criteria to determine the conditions for which carrier testing should be done[4]. It is remarkable that, more than 50 years later, the criteria are still relevant and useful for considering the design of expanded carrier screening (ECS) panels. As Sanger sequencing became available in the 1970s, the molecular cause of more diseases was revealed[5]. In 1989, the discovery of deleterious mutations in the CFTR gene as the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis (CF), opened the door to guidelines recommending that carrier screening for CF be widely offered in 1997[6]. The early 2000s marked a significant expansion of NS programs, propelled by the introduction of tandem mass spectrometry, enabling rapid and comprehensive screening for a broader range of diseases[7]. In 2001, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) together with the American Gynecological Association issued guidelines for screening for CF[8], and in 2004 for screening for fragile X[9]. During this timeframe, evidence emerged that spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) was prevalent in many ethnicities. In response, the ACMG in 2008 published guidelines for nationwide carrier screening for SMA[10]. In 2009, the first "expanded screening" platform was commercialized that allowed the option of simultaneous testing of multiple genes. In 2012, The National Human Genome Research Institute and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development launched a $25 million grant program aimed at investigating the potential applications of genome sequencing (GS) NS. This initiative sought to promote studies addressing the complexities and potentials of integrating WES or WGS into newborn healthcare[3]. In 2016 thirteen ACMG guidelines for expanded screening were issued, and since 2017 we are discussing carrier testing in the era of genomic medicine[11].
The emergence of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has transformed the diagnostic approach to rare disorders. Before the advent of NGS, diagnosing these disorders often relied on sequential targeted genetic testing, which yielded a diagnosis in about half of the cases[12,13]. For the remaining undiagnosed patients, the journey to diagnosis was prolonged, with limited options beyond traditional Sanger sequencing [14,15]. Unlike the Sanger method, whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS) enable the simultaneous sequencing of millions of short fragments covering the coding and noncoding regions, respectively. This technological advancement has led to remarkable breakthroughs, with 25–50% of previously undiagnosed patients receiving a diagnosis and the identification of new disease genes [16,17,18,19,20,21]. The genomic data obtained through NGS not only facilitates precise diagnosis but also enables personalized medical management. Continuous technological advancements are anticipated to broaden the scope of NS, offering enhanced detection capabilities over time.
The purpose of our study was the detection of genes and genomic regions responsible for severe genetic disorders in neonates using the WES and WGS method.

2. Materials and Methods

We encountered a cohort of 26 neonates and infants under the age of 6 months, admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), presenting with a variety of medical concerns, including hypotonia, hypotonia, respiratory problems, low birth weight, insufficient weight gain, feeding difficulties, structural brain abnormalities, dysmorphic facial features, microcephaly, neonatal convulsions, head tremors, encephalitis due to infection, metabolic disorders, skeletal abnormalities, congenital heart disease, pulmonary function disorders, gastrointestinal and ophthalmological disorders (Table 1).
Initially, WES was conducted for the first 17 neonates to unravel the genetic underpinnings of their conditions. Consequently, we adapted our protocol to leverage the comprehensive coverage provided by WGS, a decision substantiated by the notable increase in diagnostic yield observed in our initial findings. Our analytical approach was multifaceted, targeting a spectrum of genetic aberrations including point mutations, copy number variations (CNVs), mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variations, and nucleotide repeat expansions (WES: point mutations and indels, WGS: point mutations, indels, CNVs, mtDNA).
Massive parallel sequencing of the genome was performed using PCR-Free library preparation. In brief, genomic DNA samples extracted from peripheral blood underwent processing at the BGI facility. Subsequently, sequencing was conducted utilizing the BGI DNB sequencer (DNBseq) with paired-end sequencing reads of 150 base pairs. The average median sequence coverage was >35x. Raw data analysis involved a combined approach utilizing two algorithms: the Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK)[22], known for its effectiveness in germline variant detection [23,24], and, and the DeepVariant (DeepV) method, which employs deep learning techniques for variant detection[25,26]. Research by AlDubayan et al. demonstrated that the integration of these algorithms produces highly accurate results, with sensitivity nearing 99.9%[27]. Additionally, several in silico tools were employed to predict variant pathogenicity (SIFT, LRT, MutationTaster, FATHMM, PROVEAN, MetaSVM, MetaLR, MetaRNN, M-CAP, PrimateAI, DEOGEN2, BayesDel addAF, BayesDel noAF, LIST-S2, FATHMM MKL Coding, FATHMM XF Coding).
Regarding WGS samples, variant identification of the CNVs, including insertions or deletions of one or more exons or large genomic regions (Del/Dups), was obtained from WGS analysis data using an inhouse bioinformatic analysis pipeline.
The evaluation of the annotated variants was conducted on proprietary platform (NsClinical - Neoscreen Genomics App). In order to validate genome sequencing results, we designed primers based on the paired end reads and performed Sanger sequenced.

3. Results

In our study, the diagnostic yield of genetic testing using WES or WGS in symptomatic neonates and infants was found to be 34.6%, mostly in infants presenting with congenital anomalies, hypotonia, and epilepsy, according to ACMG criteria, providing crucial insights that guided their clinical management and treatment strategies. GS detected diagnostic variants in 9 cases of the study (34.6%). These variants included point mutations (78%), CNVs (11%) and one case of aneuploidy (11%). Details on 9 individuals, dicease causing variants found and disorders are presented in Table 2. The inheritance pattern included autosomal recessive-AR (44%), autosomal dominant-AD (n=56%). We didn't detect any x-linked disorder, which is of course due to randomly sampling. In 6 cases (patient numbers 1,2,3,8,17,24) variants found were compared to parental samples in order to determine if they were de novo or inherited from the biological parents. In cases 17 and 24 parental sequencing showed that KCNQ2 and EHMT1 variants were not inherited (de novo variants). On the contrary, parents of patients in cases 1, 2, 3 and 8 found to be both heterozygous for the respective variant.
Case 1 refers to a 12-day-old male infant, born at 36 weeks by caesarean section. This neonate showed generalized hypotonia from birth and due to extremely reduced respiratory effort had to be intubated. According to the family history, the first two children died in infancy with a similar phenotype with congenital hypotonia. The first child was hospitalized in the NICU and died 12 months old, while the second child was also hospitalized and died after 2.5 months. Parents referred two other deaths during neonatal period and infancy of unexplained etiology in the family. Parents come from the same village, so consanguinity between them could not be excluded. Based on the entire clinical and family history, a genetic disease of AR inheritance was suspected.
WES revealed a pathogenic variant in EXOSC3 gene in homozygosity, causing Pontocerebellar hypoplasia type 1b (OMIM#614678). It is a severe autosomal recessive neurologic disorder characterized by underdevelopment of the pons and cerebellum in the brain, along with severe motor deficits resulting from spinal cord motor neuron loss, hypotonia, respiratory and nutritional issues[28]. There is no targeted but only symptomatic treatment, the infant died in infancy. However, the diagnosis could help the couple for a subsequent pregnancy by giving the choice of prenatal or pre-implantation diagnosis.
Case 8 involved a 40-day-old male infant who experienced an episode of spasms in 4th day of life. The couple's history includes two miscarriages, and they have a healthy 3.5-year-old girl. WGS detected a pathogenic variant in the ECHS1 gene in homozygosity, causing mitochondrial short-chain enoyl-CoA hydratase 1 deficiency. It is an autosomal recessive metabolic disease characterized by psychomotor and developmental delay, hypotonia, encephalopathy (Leigh-like), epilepsy [29]. Moreover, this enzyme found to be involved in the valine catabolism pathway. Diagnosis is important because exclusion of valine from patient’s diet changes the outcome of the disease. Also, it could help the couple for a subsequent pregnancy by giving the choice of prenatal or preimplantation diagnosis.
It’s worth noting that a case of Trisomy 9 with evidence of mosaicism (T9M) has also been reported (case 23). Trisomy 9 is an extremely rare chromosomal abnormality, frequently appearing in mosaic form. It has been associated with high neonatal mortality, while surviving individuals often experience severe intellectual disabilities [30,31]. Structural variants played a minor role, with case 21 being heterozygous for a CNV of 938 kb (deletion) that disrupted COL9A3, SLC17A9, CHRNA4, KCNQ2, EEF1A2, RTEL1), contributing to her phenotype (Table 2).
Thorough genetic counseling was provided to all infants’ families, and potential treatment implications were discussed with the referring physician. In 33% of cases, the diagnosis aided in treatment selection for treatable conditions, while in all cases, it enhanced the overall quality of family life by preventing consanguinity, avoiding diagnostic challenges, and providing valuable information regarding reproductive options.

4. Discussion

NS is a population-wide initiative aimed at alleviating the impact of diseases that substantially affect neonates. We stand at the threshold of a new era in neonatal screening, where genomics is anticipated to emerge as a pivotal component alongside metabolomics. The key advantage of WES and WGS lies in their ability to examine a wide array of diseases for early intervention without limitations. The widespread integration of WES and WGS into clinical practice has enhanced the diagnosis of rare Mendelian disorders. By identifying pre-symptomatic children, WES and WGS enable the exploration of therapeutic interventions aimed at averting or mitigating disabilities. Moreover, they offer valuable data for advancing the development of new pharmaceutical treatments through research initiatives. While WES is not commonly applied in newborns, its application in cases of critically ill infants has demonstrated a considerable diagnostic yield for genetic disorders, thus impacting their management and prognosis[32,33].
Numerous studies indicate that the diagnostic yield of WES typically ranges from 25% to 35%, with an average of 28% based on aggregated data[34,35], while WGS consistently demonstrates diagnostic rates ranging from 40% to 60%, with an average of 49% [18,20,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. This signifies an almost two fold increase in diagnostic efficacy when choosing WGS over WES, as WGS enables the identification of single-nucleotide variants, small insertions/deletions, CNVs, balanced and complex structural variations, multiple repeat expansions, and mitochondrial variants[21,40,50,51,52]. This broader scope enables the examination of intronic, intergenic, and regulatory regions implicated in diseases often overlooked by other testing methods. In our study, if we had conducted WGS in all cases, we might have achieved an even greater diagnostic yield.
Despite their initial higher cost, the decreasing expenses of sequencing and the capacity of WES, and even more WGS, to supplant multiple testing methods like Chromosomal Microarray Analysis (CMA) and mtDNA sequencing, leading to reduced overall healthcare expenditures by replacing sequential genetic tests with a single comprehensive assay, not only resulting in quicker diagnoses and improved patient outcomes, but also reducing the financial strain on their families[53,54,55,56]. However, further research is necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this strategy.
Genetic NS holds significant promise, but it also raises several important questions and concerns, for instance over the privacy of a child's genetic information and how it could be used in the future. One of the key areas of debate is which diseases should be included in the screening program. Should it strictly focus on those conditions that have a known treatment, or should it also include diseases where early detection could offer benefits such as access to social care and support, or regular monitoring for possible complications? Additionally, there may be disparities in access to genetic screening and treatment based on socioeconomic status or geographic location. Another area of concern is how to handle findings related to adult-onset diseases or those with incomplete penetrance or incidental findings. Should there be included in the conclusion of the screening report? This raises ethical dilemmas, as some individuals may carry rare potentially pathogenic variants that could be overlooked in a healthy adult but raise concerns when found in an asymptomatic newborn[57]. There is also a risk of false alarms in such cases, which could lead to unnecessary anxiety, confusion, and additional tests for the family. Therefore, careful consideration and clear guidelines are needed to navigate these complex issues and ensure that genetic newborn screening is both effective and ethical[58,59].
Overall, this cohort underscores the critical importance of prompt and precise genetic diagnoses in ensuring optimal healthcare delivery. Our findings indicate that WES/WGS should be considered as the main diagnostic tool for genetic disorders in newborns and infants.

Author Contributions

Conseptualization: Y. L. Loukas; Methodology: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi, A. Dinopoulos; Software: Y. L. Loukas, C. Gavalas; Validation: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi; Formal analysis: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi; Investigation: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi, A. Dinopoulos; Resources: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi, A. Dinopoulos, M. Spanou, R. Pons, K. Tziouvas, G. Vartzelis, E. Skouteli, E. Loukatou, A. Charitou, K. Douros, S. Siahanidou, M. Giorgi, A. Stephanede, M. Angeli, M. Nikolaidou, E. Kokkinou, I. Kouri, V. Koute; Data curation: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi, A. Dinopoulos, M. Spanou, R. Pons, K. Tziouvas, G. Vartzelis, E. Skouteli, E. Loukatou, A. Charitou, K. Douros, S. Siahanidou, M. Giorgi, A. Stephanede, M. Angeli, M. Nikolaidou, E. Kokkinou, I. Kouri, V. Koute; Writing-Original Draft Preparation: M. Alvanou; Writing-Review and Editing: Y. L. Loukas, K. Anagnostopoulou, G.Thodi, A. Dinopoulos, M. Spanou, R. Pons, K. Tziouvas, G. Vartzelis, E. Skouteli, E. Loukatou, A. Charitou, K. Douros, S. Siahanidou, M. Giorgi, A. Stephanede, M. Angeli, M. Nikolaidou, E. Kokkinou, I. Kouri, V. Koute; Visualization: Y. L. Loukas; Supervision: Y. L. Loukas, A. Dinopoulos; Project Administration: Y. L. Loukas, A. Dinopoulos; Funding Acquisition: Y. L. Loukas.

Funding

The Rare-ID project is fully funded by the Single Action State Aid regarding of Research, Technological Development & Innovation “RESEARCH – CREATE – INNOVATE”.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from the parents of all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

The Rare-ID project is fully funded by the Single Action State Aid regarding of Research, Technological Development & Innovation “RESEARCH – CREATE – INNOVATE”, Partnership Agreement (PA) 2014-2020 with the contribution of significant resources originating from the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) of the European Union.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ACMG American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics
CF cystic fibrosis
CMA chromosomal microarray analysis
CNVs copy number variations
ECS expanded carrier screening
GS genome sequencing
mtDNA mitochondrial DNA
NGS next-generation sequencing
NICU neonatal intensive care unit
NS newborn screening
PKU phenylketonuria
SMA spinal muscular atrophy
VUS variant of uncertain significance
WES whole exome sequencing
WGS whole genome sequencing

References

  1. Fabie NA V., Pappas KB, Feldman GL. The Current State of Newborn Screening in the United States. Pediatr Clin North Am 2019;66:369–86. [CrossRef]
  2. El-Hattab AW, Almannai M, Sutton VR. Newborn Screening: History, Current Status, and Future Directions. Pediatr Clin North Am 2018;65:389–405. [CrossRef]
  3. Caggana M, Jones EA, Shahied SI, Tanksley S, Hermerath CA, Lubin IM. Newborn screening: From Guthrie to whole genome sequencing. Public Health Rep 2013;128:14–9. [CrossRef]
  4. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Déry V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: A review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ 2008;86:317–9. [CrossRef]
  5. Behjati S, Tarpey PS. What is next generation sequencing? Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed 2013;98:236–8. [CrossRef]
  6. MALCOLM S. Recent advances in the molecular analysis of inherited disease. Eur J Biochem 1990;194:317–21. [CrossRef]
  7. McCandless SE, Wright EJ. Mandatory newborn screening in the United States: History, current status, and existential challenges. Birth Defects Res 2020;112:350–66. [CrossRef]
  8. Deignan JL, Astbury C, Cutting GR, del Gaudio D, Gregg AR, Grody WW, et al. CFTR variant testing: a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2020;22:1288–95. [CrossRef]
  9. Monaghan KG, Lyon E, Spector EB. ACMG standards and guidelines for fragile X testing: A revision to the disease-specific supplements to the standards and guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2013;15:575–86. [CrossRef]
  10. Gitlin JM, Fischbeck K, Crawford TO, Cwik V, Fleischman A, Gonye K, et al. Carrier testing for spinal muscular atrophy. Genet Med 2010;12:621–2. [CrossRef]
  11. Kraft SA, Duenas D, Wilfond BS, Goddard KAB. The evolving landscape of expanded carrier screening: challenges and opportunities. Genet Med 2019;21:790–7. [CrossRef]
  12. Pareek CS, Smoczynski R, Tretyn A. Sequencing technologies and genome sequencing. J Appl Genet 2011;52:413–35. [CrossRef]
  13. Shashi V, McConkie-Rosell A, Rosell B, Schoch K, Vellore K, McDonald M, et al. The utility of the traditional medical genetics diagnostic evaluation in the context of next-generation sequencing for undiagnosed genetic disorders. Genet Med 2014;16:176–82. [CrossRef]
  14. Gahl WA, Markello TC, Toro C, Fajardo KF, Sincan M, Gill F, et al. The NIH undiagnosed diseases program: Insights into rare diseases. Genet Med 2012;14:51–9. [CrossRef]
  15. Sullivan JA, Schoch K, Spillmann RC, Shashi V. Exome/Genome Sequencing in Undiagnosed Syndromes. Annu Rev Med 2023;74:489–502. [CrossRef]
  16. Zhu X, Petrovski S, Xie P, Ruzzo EK, Lu YF, McSweeney KM, et al. Whole-exome sequencing in undiagnosed genetic diseases: Interpreting 119 trios. Genet Med 2015;17:774–81. [CrossRef]
  17. Stark Z, Schofield D, Martyn M, Rynehart L, Shrestha R, Alam K, et al. Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Genet Med 2019;21:173–80. [CrossRef]
  18. Soden SE, Saunders CJ, Willig LK, Farrow EG, Smith LD, Petrikin JE, et al. Effectiveness of exome and genome sequencing guided by acuity of illness for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders. Sci Transl Med 2014;6. [CrossRef]
  19. Schoch K, Esteves C, Bican A, Spillmann R, Cope H, McConkie-Rosell A, et al. Clinical sites of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network: unique contributions to genomic medicine and science. Genet Med 2021;23:259–71. [CrossRef]
  20. Farwell KD, Shahmirzadi L, El-Khechen D, Powis Z, Chao EC, Tippin Davis B, et al. Enhanced utility of family-centered diagnostic exome sequencing with inheritance model-based analysis: Results from 500 unselected families with undiagnosed genetic conditions. Genet Med 2015;17:578–86. [CrossRef]
  21. Bertoli-Avella AM, Beetz C, Ameziane N, Rocha ME, Guatibonza P, Pereira C, et al. Successful application of genome sequencing in a diagnostic setting: 1007 index cases from a clinically heterogeneous cohort. Eur J Hum Genet 2021;29:141–53. [CrossRef]
  22. Poplin R, Ruano-Rubio, Valentin DePristo MA, Fennell TJ, O Carneiro M, Van der Auwera GA, Kling DE, et al. Scaling accurate genetic variant discovery to tens of thousands of samples. BioRxIV 2018:1–22.
  23. Bohannan ZS, Mitrofanova A. Calling Variants in the Clinic: Informed Variant Calling Decisions Based on Biological, Clinical, and Laboratory Variables. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 2019;17:561–9. [CrossRef]
  24. Tennessen JA, Bigham AW, O ’connor TD, Fu W, Kenny EE, Gravel S, et al. Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes Broad GO, Seattle GO, on behalf of the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project. Science (80- ) 2012;337:64–9. [CrossRef]
  25. Zook JM, Chapman B, Wang J, Mittelman D, Hofmann O, Hide W, et al. Integrating human sequence data sets provides a resource of benchmark SNP and indel genotype calls. Nat Biotechnol 2014;32:246–51. [CrossRef]
  26. Poplin R, Chang PC, Alexander D, Schwartz S, Colthurst T, Ku A, et al. A universal snp and small-indel variant caller using deep neural networks. Nat Biotechnol 2018;36:983. [CrossRef]
  27. AlDubayan SH, Conway JR, Camp SY, Witkowski L, Kofman E, Reardon B, et al. Re: Detection of Pathogenic Variants with Germline Genetic Testing Using Deep Learning vs Standard Methods in Patients with Prostate Cancer and Melanoma. J Urol 2021;205:1516–7. [CrossRef]
  28. Wan J, Yourshaw M, Mamsa H, Rudnik-Schöneborn S, Menezes MP, Hong JE, et al. Mutations in the RNA exosome component gene EXOSC3 cause pontocerebellar hypoplasia and spinal motor neuron degeneration. Nat Genet 2012;44:704–8. [CrossRef]
  29. Peters H, Buck N, Wanders R, Ruiter J, Waterham H, Koster J, et al. ECHS1 mutations in Leigh disease: A new inborn error of metabolism affecting valine metabolism. Brain 2014;137:2903–8. [CrossRef]
  30. Miryounesi M, Dianatpour M, Shadmani Z, Ghafouri-Fard S. Report of a case with trisomy 9 mosaicism. Iran J Med Sci 2016;41:249–52.
  31. Li M, Glass J, Du X, Dubbs H, Harr MH, Falk M, et al. and suggested clinical guidelines 2022;185:2374–83. [CrossRef]
  32. Willig LK, Petrikin JE, Smith LD, Saunders CJ, Thiffault I, Miller NA, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for identification of Mendelian disorders in critically ill infants: A retrospective analysis of diagnostic and clinical findings. Lancet Respir Med 2015;3:377–87. [CrossRef]
  33. Saunders CJ, Miller NA, Soden SE, Dinwiddie DL, Noll A, Alnadi NA, et al. Rapid whole-genome sequencing for genetic disease diagnosis in neonatal intensive care units. Sci Transl Med 2012;4. [CrossRef]
  34. Clark MM, Stark Z, Farnaes L, Tan TY, White SM, Dimmock D, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic and clinical utility of genome and exome sequencing and chromosomal microarray in children with suspected genetic diseases. Npj Genomic Med 2018;3:1–10. [CrossRef]
  35. Ph D, Niu Z, Ph D, Wang X, Ph D, Dhar S, et al. in Adult Patients 2016;18:678–85. [CrossRef]
  36. Yuen RKC, Thiruvahindrapuram B, Merico D, Walker S, Tammimies K, Hoang N, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of quartet families with autism spectrum disorder. Nat Med 2015;21:185–91. [CrossRef]
  37. Willig LK, Petrikin JE, Smith LD, Saunders CJ, Thiffault I, Miller NA, et al. Diagnostic and Clinical Findings. Lancet Respir Med 2016;3:377–87. [CrossRef]
  38. Ellingford JM, Barton S, Bhaskar S, Williams SG, Sergouniotis PI, O’Sullivan J, et al. Whole Genome Sequencing Increases Molecular Diagnostic Yield Compared with Current Diagnostic Testing for Inherited Retinal Disease. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1143–50. [CrossRef]
  39. Bick D, Fraser P, Gutzeit M, Harris J, Hambuch T, Helbling D, et al. Successful Application of Whole Genome Sequencing in a Medical Genetics Clinic. J Pediatr Genet 2016;06:061–76. [CrossRef]
  40. Lionel AC, Costain G, Monfared N, Walker S, Reuter MS, Hosseini SM, et al. Improved diagnostic yield compared with targeted gene sequencing panels suggests a role for whole-genome sequencing as a first-tier genetic test. Genet Med 2018;20:435–43. [CrossRef]
  41. Belkadi A, Bolze A, Itan Y, Cobat A, Vincent QB, Antipenko A, et al. Whole-genome sequencing is more powerful than whole-exome sequencing for detecting exome variants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015;112:5473–8. [CrossRef]
  42. Gilissen C, Hehir-Kwa JY, Thung DT, Van De Vorst M, Van Bon BWM, Willemsen MH, et al. Genome sequencing identifies major causes of severe intellectual disability. Nature 2014;511:344–7. [CrossRef]
  43. Rauch A, Wieczorek D, Graf E, Wieland T, Endele S, Schwarzmayr T, et al. Range of genetic mutations associated with severe non-syndromic sporadic intellectual disability: An exome sequencing study. Lancet 2012;380:1674–82. [CrossRef]
  44. de Ligt J, Willemsen MH, van Bon BWM, Kleefstra T, Yntema HG, Kroes T, et al. Diagnostic Exome Sequencing in Persons with Severe Intellectual Disability. N Engl J Med 2012;367:1921–9. [CrossRef]
  45. Yang Y, Ph D, Muzny DM, Sc M, Reid JG, Ph D, et al. Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing for the Diagnosis of Mendelian Disorders. N Engl J Med 2014;369:1502–11. [CrossRef]
  46. Srivastava S, Cohen JS, Vernon H, Barañano K, McClellan R, Jamal L, et al. Clinical whole exome sequencing in child neurology practice. Ann Neurol 2014;76:473–83. [CrossRef]
  47. Todd EJ, Yau KS, Ong R, Slee J, McGillivray G, Barnett CP, et al. Next generation sequencing in a large cohort of patients presenting with neuromuscular disease before or at birth. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2015;10:1–14. [CrossRef]
  48. Lazaridis KN, Schahl KA, Cousin MA, Babovic-Vuksanovic D, Riegert-Johnson DL, Gavrilova RH, et al. Outcome of Whole Exome Sequencing for Diagnostic Odyssey Cases of an Individualized Medicine Clinic: The Mayo Clinic Experience. Mayo Clin Proc 2016;91:297–307. [CrossRef]
  49. Nolan D, Carlson M. Whole Exome Sequencing in Pediatric Neurology Patients: Clinical Implications and Estimated Cost Analysis. J Child Neurol 2016;31:887–94. [CrossRef]
  50. Kingsmore SF, Cakici JA, Clark MM, Gaughran M, Feddock M, Batalov S, et al. 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 2019;105:719–33. [CrossRef]
  51. Dolzhenko E, van Vugt JJFA, Shaw RJ, Bekritsky MA, Van Blitterswijk M, Narzisi G, et al. Detection of long repeat expansions from PCR-free whole-genome sequence data. Genome Res 2017;27:1895–903. [CrossRef]
  52. Chen X, Schulz-Trieglaff O, Shaw R, Barnes B, Schlesinger F, Källberg M, et al. Manta: Rapid detection of structural variants and indels for germline and cancer sequencing applications. Bioinformatics 2016;32:1220–2. [CrossRef]
  53. Runheim H, Pettersson M, Hammarsjö A, Nordgren A, Henriksson M, Lindstrand A, et al. The cost-effectiveness of whole genome sequencing in neurodevelopmental disorders. Sci Rep 2023;13:1–8. [CrossRef]
  54. Tan TY, Dillon OJ, Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K, Shrestha R, et al. Diagnostic impact and cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing for ambulant children with suspected monogenic conditions. JAMA Pediatr 2017;171:855–62. [CrossRef]
  55. Aaltio J, Hyttinen V, Kortelainen M, Frederix GWJ, Lönnqvist T, Suomalainen A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of whole-exome sequencing in progressive neurological disorders of children: WES cost-effectiveness in children’s encephalopathies. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 2022;36:30–6. [CrossRef]
  56. Stark Z, Tan TY, Chong B, Brett GR, Yap P, Walsh M, et al. A prospective evaluation of whole-exome sequencing as a first-tier molecular test in infants with suspected monogenic disorders. Genet Med 2016;18:1090–6. [CrossRef]
  57. Goldberg JD, Pierson S, Johansen Taber K. Expanded carrier screening: What conditions should we screen for? Prenat Diagn 2023;43:496–505. [CrossRef]
  58. Veneruso I, Di Resta C, Tomaiuolo R, D’argenio V. Current Updates on Expanded Carrier Screening: New Insights in the Omics Era. Med 2022;58:1–10. [CrossRef]
  59. Mujamammi AH. Insights into National Laboratory Newborn Screening and Future Prospects. Med 2022;58. [CrossRef]
Table 1. Neonates and infants of the study, their phenotype and age of onset and referral.
Table 1. Neonates and infants of the study, their phenotype and age of onset and referral.
A/a WES/WGS Phenotype Age
of symptoms		 Age of referral
1 WES Hypotonia, respiratory distress birth 22d
2 WES Hypotonia, brain abnormality (enlarged cisterna magna
or cerebellomedullary cistern), short neck, livedo reticularis 		20d 1.5m
3 WES Microcephaly, hypodontia, non-febrile seizures, dysmorphic facial features, absent speech, lack of mobility, epileptic encephalopathy 10d 1m
4 WES Metabolic acidosis, hypotonia, vomiting, diarrhea,
endocrine disorders, disorders of intermediary metabolism 		2d 1m
5 WES Head/neck tremor 5.5 m 6m
6 WES Neonatal convulsions, molybdenum cofactor deficiency,
epileptic encephalopathy 		birth 6d
7 WES Trunk hypotonia, ventriculomegaly, limb hypertonia, head lag,
MRI abnormalities (lateral ventricles, corpus callosum) 		birth 22d
8 WES Infatile spasms, epilepsy, leukoencephalopathy, MRI abnormalities, sensorineural hearing loss, feeding difficulties, EEG abnormalities 4d 40d
9 WES COVID-19 encephalitis 5d 5d
10 WES Lissencephaly N/A 3.5m
11 WES Hypoplasia/skeletal abnormalities of lower limbs,
varus forefoot, cryptorchidism 		birth 2d
12 WES Near-miss sudden infant death syndrome,
acute encephalopathy, convulsions, hypoglycemia, MRI abnormalities
(cytotoxic edema, cerebral hemispheres, cerebellum) 		5m 6m
13 WES Low birth weight, convulsions, limb hypertonia, head lag,
dysmorphic facial features, MRI abnormalities (basal ganglia,
white matter), poor weight gain,
small for gestational age (SGA), respiratory failure 		birth 7m
14 WES Extremely low birth weight, small for date infant,
intrauterine growth restriction, dysmorphic features,
saddle-nose deformity 		birth 1m
15 WES Neonatal convulsions 2d 20d
16 WES Apnea, bradycardia with accompanying cyanosis 1m 2m
17 WES Infantile spasms 3d 24d
18 WGS Hypotonia, muscle weakness, micrognathia,
congenital lower limb abnormalities, respiratory failure,
feeding difficulties, jaundice, clubfoot, overstretching knee,
MRI abnormalities 		birth 10d
19 WGS Feeding difficulties, trunk hypotonia, weight loss 9d 17d
20 WGS Tachypnea, prolonged expiration breathing, wheezing 2d 55d
21 WGS Infantile spasms 3d 38d
22 WGS Focal seizures, hypotonia, epileptic encephalopathy,
MRI abnormalities (basal ganglia), EEG abnormalities 		16d 23d
23 WGS Premature birth, neurodevelopmental delay, Duane type 3,
mild eye contact and communication 		5m 5m
24 WGS Micrognathia, hypotonia upper limb, hypertonia lower limb,
Failure to thrive, renal agenesis 		5m 5m
25 WGS Jaundice, thrombocytopenia, anemia, hepatosplenomegaly,
intraventricular hemorrhage grade 2-3 		birth 28d
26 WGS Hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, MRI abnormalities,
EEG abnormalities, seizures, hypertonia,
absence of breastfeeding reflexes (without congenital anomalies) 		birth 56d
Table 2. Overview of Patient Information and Genetic Findings Neonates and infants of the study, disease causing variants found, inheritance patterns and the corresponding diagnosed disorders.
Table 2. Overview of Patient Information and Genetic Findings Neonates and infants of the study, disease causing variants found, inheritance patterns and the corresponding diagnosed disorders.
A/a Patient no WES/WGS Phenotype Gene/Inheritance Disease causing variant Disorder
1 1 WES Hypotonia, respiratory distress EXOSC3 AR, hom c.92G>C, p.Gly31Ala Pontocerebellar hypoplasia, type 1B
2 2 WES Hypotonia, brain abnormality EXOSC3 AR, hom c.92G>C, p.Gly31Ala Pontocerebellar hypoplasia, type 1B
3 3 WES Microcephaly,
dysmorphic facial features, epileptic encephalopathy 		MOCS1 AR, hom c.1508_1509del, p.Glu503Alafs*103 Molybdenum cofactor deficiency A
4 8 WES Infantile spasms, hypotonia ECHS1 AR, hom c.476A>G, p.Gln159Arg Mitochondrial short-chain enoyl-CoA hydratase 1 deficiency
5 9 WES COCID-induced encephalitis infection RANBP2 AD, het c.1966A>G, p.Ile656Val Encephalopathy, acute, infection-induced, 3, susceptibility to
6 17 WES Infantile spasms KCNQ2 AD, het
de novo 		c.1229dupC, p.Pro411Alafs*7 Developmental and epileptic encephalopathy 7 / Myokymia / Seizures, benign neonatal, 1
7 21 WGS Infantile spasms CNV 938kb, het (COL9A3, SLC17A9, CHRNA4, KCNQ2, EEF1A2, RTEL1) del(20)(q13.33) chr20:62751315_63689630del Epilepsy, phsychomotor retardation, mild dysmorphic facial features, skeletal anomalies
8 23 WGS Premature birth, neurodevelopmental delay, Duane syndrome type 3 Aneuploidy Trisomy 9 mosaic IUGR, mental retardation, developmental delay, dysmorphic features, low-set ears, microphthalmia, congenital heart disease, urogenital abnormalities, skeletal abnormalities, cetral nervus system defetcs (hydrocephaly, Dandy-Walker)
9 24 WGS Micrognathia, hypotonia upper limb, hypertonia lower limb, failure to thrive EHMT1 AD, het
de novo 		c.3614C>A, p.Pro1205His Kleefstra syndrome 1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated