Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38355605›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2024

Genome sequencing as a generic diagnostic strategy for rare disease.

Gaby Schobers, Ronny Derks, Amber den Ouden, Hilde Swinkels, Jeroen van Reeuwijk, Ermanno Bosgoed, Dorien Lugtenberg, Su Ming Sun, Jordi Corominas Galbany, Marjan Weiss and 20 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
19.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Special Issue "Molecular Progression in Genome-Related Diseases".International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genomics in Health and Biomedicine.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

30 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gaby SchobersDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1380-4254
Ronny DerksDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Amber den OudenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Hilde SwinkelsDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Jeroen van ReeuwijkDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Ermanno BosgoedDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Dorien LugtenbergDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Su Ming SunDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Jordi Corominas GalbanyDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marjan WeissDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marinus J BlokDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Richelle A C M Olde KeizerDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Tom HofsteDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Debby HellebrekersDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Nicole de LeeuwDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Alexander StegmannDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Erik-Jan KamsteegDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Aimee D C PaulussenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Marjolijn J L LigtenbergDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Xiangqun Zheng BradleyIllumina Inc., Cambridge, UK.
John PedenIllumina Inc., Cambridge, UK.
Alejandra GutierrezIllumina Inc., Cambridge, UK.
Adam PullenIllumina Inc., Cambridge, UK.
Tom PayneIllumina Inc., Cambridge, UK.
Christian GilissenDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Arthur van den WijngaardDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Han G BrunnerDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Marcel Nelen *Department of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Helger G Yntema *Department of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Lisenka E L M Vissers *Department of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, Netherlands. lisenka.vissers@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLMaastricht University · NLIllumina (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development 015.014.066H2020 research and innovation program 779257
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo diagnose the full spectrum of hereditary and congenital diseases, genetic laboratories use many different workflows, ranging from karyotyping to exome sequencing. A single generic high-throughput workflow would greatly increase efficiency. We assessed whether genome sequencing (GS) can replace these existing workflows aimed at germline genetic diagnosis for rare disease.

methodsWe performed short-read GS (NovaSeq™6000; 150 bp paired-end reads, 37 × mean coverage) on 1000 cases with 1271 known clinically relevant variants, identified across different workflows, representative of our tertiary diagnostic centers. Variants were categorized into small variants (single nucleotide variants and indels < 50 bp), large variants (copy number variants and short tandem repeats) and other variants (structural variants and aneuploidies). Variant calling format files were queried per variant, from which workflow-specific true positive rates (TPRs) for detection were determined. A TPR of ≥ 98% was considered the threshold for transition to GS. A GS-first scenario was generated for our laboratory, using diagnostic efficacy and predicted false negative as primary outcome measures. As input, we modeled the diagnostic path for all 24,570 individuals referred in 2022, combining the clinical referral, the transition of the underlying workflow(s) to GS, and the variant type(s) to be detected.

resultsOverall, 95% (1206/1271) of variants were detected. Detection rates differed per variant category: small variants in 96% (826/860), large variants in 93% (341/366), and other variants in 87% (39/45). TPRs varied between workflows (79-100%), with 7/10 being replaceable by GS. Models for our laboratory indicate that a GS-first strategy would be feasible for 84.9% of clinical referrals (750/883), translating to 71% of all individuals (17,444/24,570) receiving GS as their primary test. An estimated false negative rate of 0.3% could be expected.

conclusionsGS can capture clinically relevant germline variants in a 'GS-first strategy' for the majority of clinical indications in a genetics diagnostic lab.

Indexed as

High-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingRare DiseasesBase SequenceChromosome MappingExome SequencingHumansWhole Genome SequencingGenetic diagnostic laboratoriesGenome sequencingGermline variant detectionImpact modelingRare diseaseReducing workflow complexity

Identifiers

PMID38355605
PMCPMC10868087
OpenAlexW4391809985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.