Cargando…

Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses

The Human Genome Project and advances in DNA sequencing technologies have revolutionized the identification of genetic disorders through the use of clinical exome sequencing. However, in a considerable number of patients, the genetic basis remains unclear. As clinicians begin to consider whole-genom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Steward, Charles A., Parker, Alasdair P. J., Minassian, Berge A., Sisodiya, Sanjay M., Frankish, Adam, Harrow, Jennifer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5448149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28558813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0441-1
_version_ 1783239513339854848
author Steward, Charles A.
Parker, Alasdair P. J.
Minassian, Berge A.
Sisodiya, Sanjay M.
Frankish, Adam
Harrow, Jennifer
author_facet Steward, Charles A.
Parker, Alasdair P. J.
Minassian, Berge A.
Sisodiya, Sanjay M.
Frankish, Adam
Harrow, Jennifer
author_sort Steward, Charles A.
collection PubMed
description The Human Genome Project and advances in DNA sequencing technologies have revolutionized the identification of genetic disorders through the use of clinical exome sequencing. However, in a considerable number of patients, the genetic basis remains unclear. As clinicians begin to consider whole-genome sequencing, an understanding of the processes and tools involved and the factors to consider in the annotation of the structure and function of genomic elements that might influence variant identification is crucial. Here, we discuss and illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of approaches for the annotation and classification of important elements of protein-coding genes, other genomic elements such as pseudogenes and the non-coding genome, comparative-genomic approaches for inferring gene function, and new technologies for aiding genome annotation, as a practical guide for clinicians when considering pathogenic sequence variation. Complete and accurate annotation of structure and function of genome features has the potential to reduce both false-negative (from missing annotation) and false-positive (from incorrect annotation) errors in causal variant identification in exome and genome sequences. Re-analysis of unsolved cases will be necessary as newer technology improves genome annotation, potentially improving the rate of diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5448149
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54481492017-05-30 Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses Steward, Charles A. Parker, Alasdair P. J. Minassian, Berge A. Sisodiya, Sanjay M. Frankish, Adam Harrow, Jennifer Genome Med Review The Human Genome Project and advances in DNA sequencing technologies have revolutionized the identification of genetic disorders through the use of clinical exome sequencing. However, in a considerable number of patients, the genetic basis remains unclear. As clinicians begin to consider whole-genome sequencing, an understanding of the processes and tools involved and the factors to consider in the annotation of the structure and function of genomic elements that might influence variant identification is crucial. Here, we discuss and illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of approaches for the annotation and classification of important elements of protein-coding genes, other genomic elements such as pseudogenes and the non-coding genome, comparative-genomic approaches for inferring gene function, and new technologies for aiding genome annotation, as a practical guide for clinicians when considering pathogenic sequence variation. Complete and accurate annotation of structure and function of genome features has the potential to reduce both false-negative (from missing annotation) and false-positive (from incorrect annotation) errors in causal variant identification in exome and genome sequences. Re-analysis of unsolved cases will be necessary as newer technology improves genome annotation, potentially improving the rate of diagnosis. BioMed Central 2017-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5448149/ /pubmed/28558813 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0441-1 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Steward, Charles A.
Parker, Alasdair P. J.
Minassian, Berge A.
Sisodiya, Sanjay M.
Frankish, Adam
Harrow, Jennifer
Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
title Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
title_full Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
title_fullStr Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
title_full_unstemmed Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
title_short Genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
title_sort genome annotation for clinical genomic diagnostics: strengths and weaknesses
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5448149/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28558813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0441-1
work_keys_str_mv AT stewardcharlesa genomeannotationforclinicalgenomicdiagnosticsstrengthsandweaknesses
AT parkeralasdairpj genomeannotationforclinicalgenomicdiagnosticsstrengthsandweaknesses
AT minassianbergea genomeannotationforclinicalgenomicdiagnosticsstrengthsandweaknesses
AT sisodiyasanjaym genomeannotationforclinicalgenomicdiagnosticsstrengthsandweaknesses
AT frankishadam genomeannotationforclinicalgenomicdiagnosticsstrengthsandweaknesses
AT harrowjennifer genomeannotationforclinicalgenomicdiagnosticsstrengthsandweaknesses