4.7 Article

Benchmarking of Whole Exome Sequencing and Ad Hoc Designed Panels for Genetic Testing of Hereditary Cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep37984

关键词

-

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII, MINECO) [PI13/00285, RD12/0036/0008, PIE13/00022, RD12/0036/0031]
  2. FEDER funds/European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - a way to Build Europe-// FONDOS FEDER una manera de hacer Europa
  3. Generalitat de Catalunya (Government of Catalonia) [2014SGR338]
  4. Asociacion Espanola Contra el Cancer
  5. Spanish Society of Medical Oncology grant
  6. ISCIII Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [PT13/0001/0044]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Next generation sequencing panels have been developed for hereditary cancer, although there is some debate about their cost-effectiveness compared to exome sequencing. The performance of two panels is compared to exome sequencing. Twenty-four patients were selected: ten with identified mutations (control set) and fourteen suspicious of hereditary cancer but with no mutation (discovery set). TruSight Cancer (94 genes) and a custom panel (122 genes) were assessed alongside exome sequencing. Eighty-three genes were targeted by the two panels and exome sequencing. More than 99% of bases had a read depth of over 30x in the panels, whereas exome sequencing covered 94%. Variant calling with standard settings identified the 10 mutations in the control set, with the exception of MSH6 c. 255dupC using TruSight Cancer. In the discovery set, 240 unique non-silent coding and canonic splice-site variants were identified in the panel genes, 7 of them putatively pathogenic (in ATM, BARD1, CHEK2, ERCC3, FANCL, FANCM, MSH2). The three approaches identified a similar number of variants in the shared genes. Exomes were more expensive than panels but provided additional data. In terms of cost and depth, panels are a suitable option for genetic diagnostics, although exomes also identify variants in non-targeted genes.

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

4.7
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