Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is rapidly replacing Sanger sequencing in genetic diagnostics. Sensitivity and specificity of NGS approaches are not well-defined, but can be estimated from applying NGS and Sanger sequencing in parallel. Utilizing this strategy, we aimed at optimizing exome sequencing (ES)-based diagnostics of a clinically diverse patient population. METHODS: Consecutive DNA samples from unrelated patients with suspected genetic disease were exome-sequenced; comparatively nonstringent criteria were applied in variant calling. One thousand forty-eight variants in genes compatible with the clinical diagnosis were followed up by Sanger sequencing. Based on a set of variant-specific features, predictors for true positives and true negatives were developed. RESULTS: Sanger sequencing confirmed 81.9% of ES-derived variants. Calls from the lower end of stringency accounted for the majority of the false positives, but also contained ~5% of the true positives. A predictor incorporating three variant-specific features classified 91.7% of variants with 100% specificity and 99.75% sensitivity. Confirmation status of the remaining variants (8.3%) was not predictable. CONCLUSIONS: Criteria for variant calling in ES-based diagnostics impact on specificity and sensitivity. Confirmatory sequencing for a proportion of variants, therefore, remains a necessity. Our study exemplifies how these variants can be defined on an empirical basis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bauer et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: