JAN 06, 2020 7:30 AM PST

Some Genetic Sequencing Tests Are Coming Up Short

WRITTEN BY: Carmen Leitch

If doctors suspect that a person has a genetic disease, it’s become straightforward to simply sequence all the coding regions of the individual’s genome; what used to be an incredibly time-consuming and laborious process has now become a more routine part of healthcare. This is especially true for young children and infants that have mysterious illnesses that probably have a genetic cause. However, new research has suggested that this sequencing methodology, called whole exome sequencing, may be missing large portions of protein-coding DNA, and may be impeding doctors from making a proper diagnosis.

A re-analysis of clinical tests from three major U.S. laboratories showed whole exome sequencing routinely failed to adequately analyze large segments of DNA. UT Southwestern experts who conducted the review say the findings are indicative of a widespread issue for clinical laboratories. / Credit: UTSW

This study, which was reported in Clinical Chemistry, showed that labs performing whole exome sequencing tended to analyze less than three-quarters of coding genes, and showed that there are large gaps in their diagnostic abilities for certain diseases. The study authors are concerned about how the quality of genetic testing is being documented.

"Many of the physicians who order these tests don't know this is happening," said Jason Park, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of pathology at UT Southwestern. "Many of their patients are young kids with neurological disorders, and they want to get the most complete diagnostic test. But they don't realize whole exome sequencing may miss something that a more targeted genetic test would find."

There are around 20,000 genes that code for protein in the genome, which only makes up about two percent of our genetic material. However, analyzing all of those genes completely is challenging, and there may be oversights, noted Park. About half of whole exome sequencing analyses don’t find a genetic mutation carried by the patient, and this study may help show why.

After reassessing exome testing for 36 patients, done between 2012 and 2016 at three national laboratories, the researchers found big differences. A ‘completely analyzed’ gene would have had its coding region sequenced at least twenty times per test. The study showed that less that 1.5 percent of genes were completely analyzed in the 36 samples. In one lab, at least 28 percent of genes weren’t completely analyzed, and only five percent definitely were. Another lab had completely analyzed only 27 percent of genes. 

"And things really start to fall apart when you start thinking about using these tests to rule out a disease," Park said. "A negative exome result is meaningless when so many of the genes are not thoroughly analyzed."

Every lab had a different chance of diagnosing an epileptic disorder. One lab was checking most epilepsy-related genes in most patients, although three of their patient samples had only covered around 40 percent of those genes. Another lab was checking only about 20 percent of those genes completely. 

"When we saw this data we made it a regular practice to ask the labs about coverage of specific genes," said the corresponding study author Garrett Gotway, M.D., Ph.D., a clinical geneticist at UT Southwestern. "I don't think you can expect complete coverage of 18,000 genes every time, but it's fair to expect 90 percent or more."

Other work has revealed similar problems with a different kind of sequencing tool, whole genome sequencing. The researchers are hopeful that more clinicians will demand better testing standards for their patients.

"Clinical exomes can be helpful in complex cases, but you probably don't need one if a kid has epilepsy and doesn't have other complicating clinical problems," Gotway said. "There's a decent chance the exome test will come back negative and the parents are still left wondering about the genetic basis for their child's disease."

Gotway suggested that using genetic tests that focus on a panel of disease-related genes that are appropriate for a patient may be a better way to look for a disease-causing mutation. These tests can be less expensive and better at revealing genetic errors that cause disease.


Sources: AAAS/Eurekalert! via UT Southwestern Medical Center, Clinical Chemistry

About the Author
  • Experienced research scientist and technical expert with authorships on 28 peer-reviewed publications, traveler to over 60 countries, published photographer and internationally-exhibited painter, volunteer trained in disaster-response, CPR and DV counseling.
You May Also Like
JAN 28, 2020
Cell & Molecular Biology
JAN 28, 2020
A Rare Genetic Disorder is Effectively Treated With Modified Stem Cells
A clinical trial used stem cell gene therapy to treat a rare genetic disorder called X-CGD. Image credit: UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center/Nature Medicine...
FEB 17, 2020
Cancer
FEB 17, 2020
Listening in on cancer cells
Research published today in Nature Methods reports a new technique of “listening” to cancer cells. While it may sound odd (no pun intended...
MAR 09, 2020
Genetics & Genomics
MAR 09, 2020
Researchers Alter How Bacteria Communicate
The bacterium Escherichia coli comes in many forms, and researchers have used a harmless strain of it to redesign how the microbes communicate....
MAR 23, 2020
Genetics & Genomics
MAR 23, 2020
Diagnosing Cancer by Looking for Microbial DNA in the Blood
Liquid biopsies aim to diagnose a disease with only a bit of biological fluid, usually blood....
MAR 04, 2020
Neuroscience
MAR 04, 2020
Memories Are Stored As Specific Neural Firing Patterns
Scientists working on the EPFL Blue Brain Project explain the algebraic patterns of neuron activity.  Scientists at the National Institute of Health&r...
APR 04, 2020
Cannabis Sciences
APR 04, 2020
Only 50% Cannabis Genome Has Been Mapped
As more and more jurisdictions are decriminalizing cannabis usage, its popularity both for medicinal and recreational use is growing around the world. Desp...
Loading Comments...