ArticleBMC medical genomics2023
Relevance of next generation sequencing (NGS) data re-analysis in the diagnosis of monogenic diseases leading to organ failure.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stratified Use of Genetic Testing in Liver Disease Improves Diagnostic Yield and Clinical Impact.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Navigating an Uninformative Genomic Test Result: A Practical Guide.Journal of paediatrics and child health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2018, our center started a program to offer genetic diagnosis to patients with kidney and liver monogenic rare conditions, potentially eligible for organ transplantation. We exploited a clinical exome sequencing approach, followed by analyses of in silico gene panels tailored to clinical suspicions, obtaining detection rates in line with what reported in literature. However, a percentage of patients remains without a definitive genetic diagnosis. This work aims to evaluate the utility of NGS data re-analysis for those patients with an inconclusive or negative genetic test at the time of first analysis considering that (i) the advance of alignment and variant calling processes progressively improve the detection rate, limiting false positives and false negatives; (ii) gene panels are periodically updated and (iii) variant annotation may change over time.
methods114 patients, recruited between 2018 and 2020, with an inconclusive or negative NGS report at the time of first analysis, were included in the study. Re-alignment and variant calling of previously generated sequencing raw data were performed using the GenomSys Variant Analyzer software.
results21 previously not reported potentially causative variants were identified in 20 patients. In most cases (n = 19), causal variants were retrieved out of the re-classification from likely benign to variants of unknown significance (VUS). In one case, the variant was included because of inclusion in the analysis of a newly disease-associated gene, not present in the original gene panel, and in another one due to the improved data alignment process. Whenever possible, variants were validated with Sanger sequencing and family segregation studies. As of now, 16 out of 20 patients have been analyzed and variants confirmed in 8 patients. Specifically, in two pediatric patients, causative variants were de novo mutations while in the others, the variant was present also in other affected relatives. In the remaining patients, variants were present also in non-affected parents, raising questions on their re-classification.
conclusionsOverall, these data indicate that periodic and systematic re-analysis of negative or inconclusive NGS data reports can lead to new variant identification or reclassification in a small but significant proportion of cases, with benefits for patients' management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.