Clinical sequencing: is WGS the better WES?
Janine Meienberg, Rémy Bruggmann, Konrad Oexle, Gabor Matyas, Janine Meienberg, Rémy Bruggmann, Konrad Oexle, Gabor Matyas
Abstract
Current clinical next-generation sequencing is done by using gene panels and exome analysis, both of which involve selective capturing of target regions. However, capturing has limitations in sufficiently covering coding exons, especially GC-rich regions. We compared whole exome sequencing (WES) with the most recent PCR-free whole genome sequencing (WGS), showing that only the latter is able to provide hitherto unprecedented complete coverage of the coding region of the genome. Thus, from a clinical/technical point of view, WGS is the better WES so that capturing is no longer necessary for the most comprehensive genomic testing of Mendelian disorders.
Figures
References
- Belkadi A, Bolze A, Itan Y, et al. Whole-genome sequencing is more powerful than whole-exome sequencing for detecting exome variants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112:5473–5478. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418631112.
- Derrien T, Estelle J, Marco Sola S, et al. Fast computation and applications of genome mappability. PLoS One. 2012;7:e30377. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030377.
- Escaramis G, Docampo E, Rabionet R. A decade of structural variants: description, history and methods to detect structural variation. Brief Funct Genomics. 2015;14:305–314. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elv014.
- Gilissen C, Hehir-Kwa JY, Thung DT, et al. Genome sequencing identifies major causes of severe intellectual disability. Nature. 2014;511:344–347. doi: 10.1038/nature13394.
- Girirajan S, Brkanac Z, Coe BP, et al. Relative burden of large CNVs on a range of neurodevelopmental phenotypes. PLoS Genet. 2011;7:e1002334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002334.
- Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:565–574. doi: 10.1038/gim.2013.73.
- Lelieveld SH, Spielmann M, Mundlos S, Veltman JA, Gilissen C. Comparison of exome and genome sequencing technologies for the complete capture of protein-coding regions. Hum Mutat. 2015;36:815–822. doi: 10.1002/humu.22813.
- MacDonald JR, Ziman R, Yuen RK, Feuk L, Scherer SW. The Database of Genomic Variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D986–D992. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt958.
- Meienberg J, Zerjavic K, Keller I, et al. New insights into the performance of human whole-exome capture platforms. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:e76. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv216.
- Miller NA, Farrow EG, Gibson M, et al. A 26-hour system of highly sensitive whole genome sequencing for emergency management of genetic diseases. Genome Med. 2015;7:100. doi: 10.1186/s13073-015-0221-8.
- Saudi Mendeliome Group Comprehensive gene panels provide advantages over clinical exome sequencing for Mendelian diseases. Genome Biol. 2015;16:134. doi: 10.1186/s13059-015-0693-2.
- Soden SE, Saunders CJ, Willig LK, et al. Effectiveness of exome and genome sequencing guided by acuity of illness for diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:265ra168. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3010076.
- Spielmann M, Klopocki E. CNVs of noncoding cis-regulatory elements in human disease. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2013;23:249–256. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2013.02.013.
- Szatkiewicz JP, Wang W, Sullivan PF, Sun W. Improving detection of copy-number variation by simultaneous bias correction and read-depth segmentation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:1519–1532. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1363.
- Willig LK, Petrikin JE, Smith LD, et al. Whole-genome sequencing for identification of Mendelian disorders in critically ill infants: a retrospective analysis of diagnostic and clinical findings. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3:377–387. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00139-3.
Source: PubMed