3 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Genetic ancestry and diagnostic yield of exome sequencing in a diverse population
It has been suggested that diagnostic yield (DY) from Exome Sequencing (ES) may be lower among patients with non-European ancestries than those with European ancestry. We examined the association of DY with estimated continental/subcontinental genetic ancestry in a racially/ethnically diverse pediatric and prenatal clinical cohort. Cases (N = 845) with suspected genetic disorders underwent ES for diagnosis. Continental/subcontinental genetic ancestry proportions were estimated from the ES data. We compared the distribution of genetic ancestries in positive, negative, and inconclusive cases by Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests and linear associations of ancestry with DY by Cochran-Armitage trend tests. We observed no reduction in overall DY associated with any genetic ancestry (African, Native American, East Asian, European, Middle Eastern, South Asian). However, we observed a relative increase in proportion of autosomal recessive homozygous inheritance versus other inheritance patterns associated with Middle Eastern and South Asian ancestry, due to consanguinity. In this empirical study of ES for undiagnosed pediatric and prenatal genetic conditions, genetic ancestry was not associated with the likelihood of a positive diagnosis, supporting the equitable use of ES in diagnosis of previously undiagnosed but potentially Mendelian disorders across all ancestral populations
Author Correction: Diagnostic yield of pediatric and prenatal exome sequencing in a diverse population
Recommended from our members
Diagnostic yield of pediatric and prenatal exome sequencing in a diverse population
The diagnostic yield of exome sequencing (ES) has primarily been evaluated in individuals of European ancestry, with less focus on underrepresented minority (URM) and underserved (US) patients. We evaluated the diagnostic yield of ES in a cohort of predominantly US and URM pediatric and prenatal patients suspected to have a genetic disorder. Eligible pediatric patients had multiple congenital anomalies and/or neurocognitive disabilities and prenatal patients had one or more structural anomalies, disorders of fetal growth, or fetal effusions. URM and US patients were prioritized for enrollment and underwent ES at a single academic center. We identified definitive positive or probable positive results in 201/845 (23.8%) patients, with a significantly higher diagnostic rate in pediatric (26.7%) compared to prenatal patients (19.0%) (P = 0.01). For both pediatric and prenatal patients, the diagnostic yield and frequency of inconclusive findings did not differ significantly between URM and non-URM patients or between patients with US status and those without US status. Our results demonstrate a similar diagnostic yield of ES between prenatal and pediatric URM/US patients and non-URM/US patients for positive and inconclusive results. These data support the use of ES to identify clinically relevant variants in patients from diverse populations