4.6 Article

Discordant results between conventional newborn screening and genomic sequencing in the BabySeq Project

期刊

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
卷 23, 期 7, 页码 1372-1375

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01146-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01HG009922, R01HL143295, U01TR003201, U19HD077671]
  2. [K23 HD102589-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most newborns in the study had negative results in both NBS and ES, showing consistency in identifying disease risks between the two methods. However, there were differences as ES could help detect genetic disease risks that are not included in conventional NBS programs.
Purpose Newborn screening (NBS) is performed to identify neonates at risk for actionable, severe, early-onset disorders, many of which are genetic. The BabySeq Project randomized neonates to receive conventional NBS or NBS plus exome sequencing (ES) capable of detecting sequence variants that may also diagnose monogenic disease or indicate genetic disease risk. We therefore evaluated how ES and conventional NBS results differ in this population. Methods We compared results of NBS (including hearing screens) and ES for 159 infants in the BabySeq Project. Infants were considered NBS positive if any abnormal result was found indicating disease risk and ES positive if ES identified a monogenic disease risk or a genetic diagnosis. Results Most infants (132/159, 84%) were NBS and ES negative. Only one infant was positive for the same disorder by both modalities. Nine infants were NBS positive/ES negative, though seven of these were subsequently determined to be false positives. Fifteen infants were ES positive/NBS negative, all of which represented risk of genetic conditions that are not included in NBS programs. No genetic explanation was identified for eight infants referred on the hearing screen. Conclusion These differences highlight the complementarity of information that may be gleaned from NBS and ES in the newborn period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据