4.5 Review

An analysis of exome sequencing for diagnostic testing of the genes associated with muscle disease and spastic paraplegia

Journal

HUMAN MUTATION
Volume 33, Issue 4, Pages 614-626

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.22032

Keywords

CAPN3; exome; LGMD; HSP; neuromuscular disorders; clinical genetic testing

Funding

  1. Rare Disease Foundation
  2. National Human Genome Research Institute
  3. Child and Family Research Institute
  4. Canadian Child Health Clinician Scientist Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study, we assess exome sequencing (ES) as a diagnostic alternative for genetically heterogeneous disorders. Because ES readily identified a previously reported homozygous mutation in the CAPN3 gene for an individual with an undiagnosed limb girdle muscular dystrophy, we evaluated ES as a generalizable clinical diagnostic tool by assessing the targeting efficiency and sequencing coverage of 88 genes associated with muscle disease (MD) and spastic paraplegia (SPG). We used three exome-capture kits on 125 individuals. Exons constituting each gene were defined using the UCSC and CCDS databases. The three exome-capture kits targeted 4792% of bases within the UCSC-defined exons and 9799% of bases within the CCDS-defined exons. An average of 61.299.5% and 19.199.5% of targeted bases per gene were sequenced to 20X coverage within the CCDS-defined MD and SPG coding exons, respectively. Greater than 9599% of targeted known mutation positions were sequenced to =1X coverage and 5587% to =20X coverage in every exome. We conclude, therefore, that ES is a rapid and efficient first-tier method to screen for mutations, particularly within the CCDS annotated exons, although its application requires disclosure of the extent of coverage for each targeted gene and supplementation with second-tier Sanger sequencing for full coverage. Hum Mutat 33:614626, 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available