13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Genomic answers for children: Dynamic analyses of >1000 pediatric rare disease genomes

      , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      Genetics in Medicine
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

          The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans

            Genetic variants that inactivate protein-coding genes are a powerful source of information about the phenotypic consequences of gene disruption: genes that are crucial for the function of an organism will be depleted of such variants in natural populations, whereas non-essential genes will tolerate their accumulation. However, predicted loss-of-function variants are enriched for annotation errors, and tend to be found at extremely low frequencies, so their analysis requires careful variant annotation and very large sample sizes 1 . Here we describe the aggregation of 125,748 exomes and 15,708 genomes from human sequencing studies into the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD). We identify 443,769 high-confidence predicted loss-of-function variants in this cohort after filtering for artefacts caused by sequencing and annotation errors. Using an improved model of human mutation rates, we classify human protein-coding genes along a spectrum that represents tolerance to inactivation, validate this classification using data from model organisms and engineered human cells, and show that it can be used to improve the power of gene discovery for both common and rare diseases.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly using phased assembly graphs with hifiasm

              Haplotype-resolved de novo assembly is the ultimate solution to the study of sequence variations in a genome. However, existing algorithms either collapse heterozygous alleles into one consensus copy or fail to cleanly separate the haplotypes to produce high-quality phased assemblies. Here we describe hifiasm, a de novo assembler that takes advantage of long high-fidelity sequence reads to faithfully represent the haplotype information in a phased assembly graph. Unlike other graph-based assemblers that only aim to maintain the contiguity of one haplotype, hifiasm strives to preserve the contiguity of all haplotypes. This feature enables the development of a graph trio binning algorithm that greatly advances over standard trio binning. On three human and five nonhuman datasets, including California redwood with a ~30-Gb hexaploid genome, we show that hifiasm frequently delivers better assemblies than existing tools and consistently outperforms others on haplotype-resolved assembly.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Genetics in Medicine
                Genetics in Medicine
                Elsevier BV
                10983600
                March 2022
                March 2022
                Article
                10.1016/j.gim.2022.02.007
                35305867
                2bed36d4-3351-4f19-b954-d3962e9827a8
                © 2022

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article