Decoding Complex Inherited Phenotypes in Rare Disorders: The DECIPHERD initiative for rare undiagnosed diseases in Chile.

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3232133/v1

Download PDF

Article

Decoding Complex Inherited Phenotypes in Rare Disorders: The DECIPHERD initiative for rare undiagnosed diseases in Chile.

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3232133/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 04 Jan, 2024

Read the published version in European Journal of Human Genetics →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Rare diseases affect millions of people worldwide, and most have a genetic etiology. The incorporation of next-generation sequencing into clinical settings, particularly exome and genome sequencing, has resulted in an unprecedented improvement in diagnosis and discovery in the past decade. Nevertheless, these tools are unavailable in many countries, increasing health care gaps between high- and low-and-middle-income countries and prolonging the “diagnostic odyssey” for patients.

To advance genomic diagnoses in a setting of limited genomic resources, we developed DECIPHERD, an undiagnosed diseases program in Chile. DECIPHERD was implemented in two phases: training and local development. The training phase relied on international collaboration with Baylor College of Medicine, and the local development was structured as a hybrid model, where clinical and bioinformatics analysis were performed in-house and sequencing outsourced abroad, due to lack of high-throughput equipment in Chile. We describe the implementation process and findings of the first 103 patients. They had heterogeneous phenotypes, including congenital anomalies, intellectual disabilities and/or immune system dysfunction. Patients underwent clinical exome or research exome sequencing, as solo cases or with parents using a trio design. We identified pathogenic, likely pathogenic or variants of unknown significance in genes related to the patients´ phenotypes in 48 (46.6%) of them. Half were de novo informative variants, and half of the identified variants have not been previously reported in public databases. DECIPHERD ended the diagnostic odyssey for many participants. This hybrid strategy may be useful for settings of similarly limited genomic resources and lead to discoveries in understudied populations.

Health sciences/Medical research/Genetics research

Biological sciences/Genetics/Genomics/Medical genomics

Biological sciences/Genetics/Clinical genetics/Disease genetics

Rare Diseases

Undiagnosed diseases

Exome Sequencing

Low-and-middle Income Countries

Rare diseases (RD) affect all populations worldwide. Although each disease is individually rare, their cumulative prevalence is estimated at approximately 5% of the population (1). With a global population of nearly 8 billion people in 2023, this figure suggests that around 400 million people may suffer from an RD, and 330 million of them could live in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC) (estimated from (2). Given the rarity of each condition, affected individuals, families and health systems face many challenges in access and quality of care. The prolonged “diagnostic odyssey” or “medical pilgrimage” is among these challenges, which can last decades (3).

The majority of RDs have a genetic etiology. Exome and genome sequencing (ES and GS, respectively) have revolutionized diagnosis and discovery of RDs in the past 15 years in an unprecedented way (4), particularly for persons with rare undiagnosed disorders (RUD). The early use of ES and GS has been shown to be cost-effective compared with stepwise-testing, and it has clinical utility in terms of changes in clinical management and reproductive decisions (5–10). Nevertheless, these powerful diagnostic tools are not available globally. Only 31 countries have ES as a clinical diagnostic service listed in the Genetic Testing Registry (11), and most of them are in high- or high-middle-income countries, according to World Bank classification, except for India and Bangladesh (12). The lack of availability and coverage of complex laboratory genomic services increases the already substantial healthcare gaps for persons with RD. Barriers to implementation of ES and GS in LMICs include lack of adequately trained and certified personnel, especially in laboratory genetics and genomics and bioinformatics; higher costs of equipment and reagents compared with the global North, lack of coverage and reimbursement of testing, and insufficient regulatory, legal and ethics frameworks (13, 14). As a result, there is limited availability of genomic testing for persons with RDs, and therefore, prolonged, and unsolved diagnostic odysseys. In some countries, patients and clinicians opt to outsource testing, but this usually requires substantial personal out-of-pocket payments, which also limits access to only those who can afford these payments (15, 16).

Although Chile is a high-income country according to World Bank standards (12), it can be considered as an “emerging nation” in terms of genomic medicine implementation (17). For example, there are no high-throughput sequencers in clinical laboratories to provide ES or GS for diagnosis of RD in a cost- and time-efficient manner, and there are no training or certified programs in clinical laboratory genetics and genomics or bioinformatics.

It remains unknown if and how countries with limited genomic resources can develop RD diagnostic resources. To overcome this gap, we implemented a program for RD in Chile, called DEcoding Complex Inherited PHenotypes of Rare Diseases (DECIPHERD), with a specific focus on patients with RUD. The strategy was implemented in two phases: first, a training phase, which relied on international collaboration, followed by a second, local development phase. This second phase used a hybrid strategy, with clinical evaluation and variant data analysis interpretation performed locally, but ES outsourced abroad. We report on the process of implementation, and the results of the first 103 analyzed probands.

Implementation of the DECIPHERD sequencing and analysis pipeline consisted of two phases: a training phase and a local development phase. During the training phase, samples from probands and their parents were submitted to Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) for trio ES. The resulting exome data was analyzed by members of the DECIPHERD team who had the opportunity to train at BCM. In addition, a workshop on variant interpretation, led by collaborators from the US, was hosted at Universidad del Desarrollo (UDD). In parallel, probands underwent clinical exome sequencing (CES) and analysis at UDD. Comparisons of the overall diagnostic yield of both strategies and of the concordance of results for a subset of probands that were analyzed under both strategies were performed to decide the best design for the local development phase.

Participants

Probands with RUD, of any age or sex, and residing in Chile, were candidates to participate. The inclusion criteria were: (1) the presence of 2 or more major congenital anomalies, or one major and several minor anomalies, (2) neurological abnormalities such as global developmental delay or intellectual disability with one major or multiple minor congenital anomalies, or (3) significant dysfunction of the immune system, for which a genetic etiology was suspected. Probands were referred to the DECIPHERD study by their treating physicians if a cause was not identified despite prior evaluations at their local health centers (e.g., karyotype, FMR1, microarray, metabolic or gene panel testing, among others). Demographic information was obtained from interviews with probands and/or parents or guardians. Candidate participants were presented by their treating physicians at a weekly screening meeting led by the core DECIPHERD team, which includes clinicians, laboratory geneticists and bioinformaticians. Clinical history was presented using a structured form, and the probands’ clinical features were described using Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) terms (18). After a multidisciplinary discussion, probands that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were invited to participate. Parent participation for trio analysis was preferred when possible. Written informed consent was obtained from the participants and/or their guardians.

Samples and DNA extraction

Blood samples were obtained in EDTA tubes from probands and their parents when available. Genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany).

Exome sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines

Training phase

For trio exome sequencing at BCM (BCM-ES-trio), exome enrichment libraries were obtained using the NimbleGen VCRome 2.1 kit (Roche, Switzerland) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. These samples were subsequently sequenced using Illumina HiSeq 2500 equipment (Illumina, CA, USA). All data was aligned to GRCh37. Data processing and variant annotation was performed using the Variant Analyzer bioinformatic pipeline developed at BCM (https://github.com/BC-Lupskilab/VariantAnalyzer).

Variants with less than 3 reads were excluded, as well as synonymous, deep intronic and intergenic variants, and 3’ and 5’ UTR regions. Annotated variants were evaluated using both recessive, dominant, and X-linked models. For the recessive model, variants with minor allele frequency (MAF) greater than 0.005 within the Baylor-Hopkins Center for Mendelian Genomics (CMG), ESP 5400, 1000 Genomes, gnomAD and ExAC databases were excluded. Also, potential recessive variants were excluded if they were present in the ExAC database with a homozygous or hemizygous count of 10 or greater. For autosomal dominant model analyses, variants were excluded if their MAF were greater than 0.001 in these databases, and if they were present in the ExAC database with an allele count greater than 5. Rare variants were analyzed manually considering specific variant characteristics including type of variant and the combined annotation dependent depletion (CADD) score (https://cadd.gs.washington.edu). Different publicly available resources were used to evaluate the association of a patient’s phenotype with his/her detected variant allele such as OMIM (https://www.omim.org), gnomAD (https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org), UCSC Genome browser (https://genome.ucsc.edu),PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) among others.

A subset of candidate variants was orthogonally confirmed by Sanger sequencing at UDD. Regions containing the genetic variants were amplified by PCR with custom-design primers using the ApE software (19) (ApE- A plasmid Editor (utah.edu) and synthetized by Macrogen™ (Korea). The resulting ~ 300bp amplicons were sequenced bidirectionally using BigDye™ Terminator v1.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, US) and the SeqStudio™ Genetic Analyzer (Thermo Fischer Scientific, Waltham, MA, US).

Local development phase

In parallel, and due to the lack of available high throughput sequencing equipment in clinical laboratories in Chile, we initially performed clinical exome sequencing (CES) in probands only at UDD (UDD-CES-Solo), using the SOPHiA Clinical Exome Solution V1 (SOPHiA Genetics, Lausanne, Switzerland). This method captures exons from 4964 genes known to cause Mendelian disorders. Sequencing was carried out in an IIlumina MiSeq sequencer. Results were analyzed using the SOPHiA DDM™ software with the same filters described above and compared with those obtained in the training phase. A subset of candidate variants was confirmed by Sanger sequencing in the proband and parents if available as described above.

Subsequently, we opted for a hybrid model, where ES was performed abroad, and the analysis of the results was performed at UDD by laboratory scientists of the DECIPHERD core team (DECIPHERD-ES). Sequencing was outsourced to Novogene (Beijing, China) using SOPHiA Exome Solution_V1 capture (SOPHiA Genetics, Lausanne, Switzerland), that captures the exons of approximately 19,680 protein-coding genes. The resulting annotated variants were evaluated by the core DECIPHERD team using the SOPHiA DDM™ platform. This platform provides information on population frequencies of the databases mentioned above, but it also includes those obtained from the SOPHIA users´ community and our local cohort. All the annotated variants were reviewed stepwise according to their inheritance model, starting by autosomal recessive (AR, considering homozygous and compound heterozygous variants), followed by autosomal dominant (AD) and X-linked (XL) models, as well as de novo occurrences, using the same frequency filters described for the training phase, and with the additional filter of excluding variants present in 2 or more unrelated participants from our cohort. The process also allows the detection of copy-number variants (CNVs). HPO terms were used to create virtual gene panels to initially narrow down the search for candidate variants within genes already associated to each patient´s phenotype, subsequently the exomes were also analyzed in a phenotypically unbiased manner. Rare variants were analyzed manually considering variant characteristics including type of mutation and combined annotation dependent depletion (CADD) score. The same databases described above were used to obtain additional variant information. We then prioritized the filtered variants based on their ACMG interpretation provided by the SOPHiA platform and further assessed their interpretation with additional freely available resources, including ClinVar (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar), Varsome (www.varsome.com) and Franklin (https://franklin.genoox.com). Candidate variants were interpreted as either pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), variant of unknown significance (VUS), likely benign (LB) or benign (B). In case of discrepancies among these resources, the interpretation provided by ClinVar, if available, was selected; if a variant was not included in ClinVar, the most common interpretation among the other resources was chosen.

Clinical interpretation

Results were considered “informative” when a P, LP variant or VUS was identified in a gene consistent with the proband’s phenotype. Informative cases were then labeled as “solved” for P/LP variants and “suggestive” when a VUS was identified. Recessive conditions in which only one informative variant was identified were considered “partially informative”, given that we could not define if this represented carrier status only, a novel potentially dominant form of the disease, as has been previously described for other disorders (20) or a compound heterozygote for a non-coding variant undetected by this method. Results were considered “uninformative” when there were no variants identified that could explain the patient’s phenotype. Results were returned to families and referring clinicians in a genetic counselling session and with a written report.

Statistical analysis

All data were stored in REDCap (21). Descriptive analysis included frequencies, means and ranges. To identify variables associated with the likelihood of obtaining an informative result, first, we built bivariate logistic regression models for each of the following variables: sex, age (in years, and categorized in groups representing childhood (0–12 years), adolescence (12-–18 years) and adulthood (18–52 years), type of care (public or private), number of systems affected (based on the grouping of individual HPO terms into “systems” according to their hierarchy in the HPO’s terms tree), and whether the patient had congenital anomalies, neurological or immune compromise (represented as binary variables each). Then, we built a multivariate regression model including all variables mentioned before. The analyses were performed in RStudio v.2023.06.0 + 421 with R v.4.2.2, using the glm function and the binomial family modifier.

Demographic and clinical characterization of patients

Between June 2019 and December 2022, 133 probands were screened for the study and 103 of them consented to participate. Non-participants included probands who did not fulfill inclusion criteria (n = 21) or declined to participate (n = 9).

To characterize the probands' phenotypes, we collected information from clinical records and in-person evaluations, describing clinical manifestations using HPO terms. Demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The most frequent clinical inclusion criteria were congenital anomalies, with or without neurological abnormalities, present in 75% of probands (Supplementary Table 1). When grouped by systems, the overall cohort had involvement of 21 different organ systems. The majority of probands had neurologic manifestations, followed by craniofacial, musculoskeletal and growth manifestations (Fig. 1a). All probands had manifestations in at least two major systems, with a median of six and a range of two to eleven compromised systems (Fig. 1b). These results show that probands had heterogeneous and complex clinical manifestations.

Comparison of findings in the training and initial development phase

During the training and the initial development phases, 13 trios had BCM-ES and 16 probands had UDD-CES, with an overlap of 6 probands. An informative finding was identified in 7 BCM-ES-trio analysis (53.8%) and 4 UDD-CES-solo analysis (25%). Three of the six overlapping probands had informative findings identified by both strategies. In addition, one UDD-CES-solo uninformative case had an informative result by BCM-ES-trio, resulting from a gene that was not included in the CES panel. The higher yield of trio ES compared with CES led to the decision to continue with ES in the local development phase.

Exome analysis

After the learning phase, seventy-four additional probands were included in the local development phase (DECIPHERD-ES) using the hybrid model. From this point onward, findings are presented in aggregated form including both the training and local development phases. Ten probands with uninformative results on UDD-CES subsequently had DECIPHERD-ES. Therefore, we performed 113 total analyses in the 103 probands, of which 97 were ES. Of those undergoing ES, seventy-one (69%) participated as trios with both parents, 7 (6.7%) as duos (proband with mother, 3.8%) and 19 were solo cases (19.6%), for a total of 246 participants.

Forty-eight probands (46.6%) had informative results, that is a P/LP, variant or a VUS in genes known to cause conditions consistent with their clinical phenotypes. The different strategies had different yields of informative results. CES provided informative results for 4 of 16 probands (25%), ES-solo for 9 of 19 (47.5%), ES duo in 2 of 7 (28.6%) and ES-trio in 33 of 71 families (46.5%). The results of these strategies are summarized in Table 2.

Thirty of these 48 probands with informative results were considered “solved” cases, i.e. a molecular diagnosis concluded with the identification of P/LP variants (29.1% of all probands and 63% of those with informative results), of which 22 had an AD condition, 4 AR and 4 XL. In contrast, 15 cases had VUS and were considered as “suggestive results” (14.5% of all probands and 31.3% of those with informative results, respectively), of which 6 corresponded to AD conditions, 5 AR and 4XL. Finally, three cases were considered “partially informative” (2.9% and 6.3%, respectively) since they had a single variant identified in a gene associated with a recessive condition and a phenotype consistent with this AR disease. Clinical and molecular findings of the patients with informative results can be found in Table 3.

Four patients with suggestive results warrant further description since they illustrate interesting findings. Patient ID#64 had diagnosis of renal and pancreatic cysts at age 2 years, with recurrent infections and was found to have two VUS in PKD1, inherited in trans from healthy parents. This is generally considered an AD disease; however, cases have been described with biallelic hypomorphic mutations in this gene, postulated to be an AR form of disease(22). Another patient (ID#91) with severe ID and born to consanguineous parents had a homozygous P/LP variant in SETD5, known to cause dominant ID, but with incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity(23, 24). In this case, one parent was described as having mild ID, and we propose the existence of a potentially more severe recessive phenotype for this condition. Finally, two patients (ID# 106 and #125) had VUS in two different genes each, associated with components of their phenotypes; these situations may constitute dual genetic diagnoses.

This heterogenous cohort allowed the identification of novel variants potentially associated with disease. We found 55 distinct informative variants in the 48 probands (considering homozygotes as having one same variant). Fifty-one variants were SNVs and 4 were CNVs. Among informative variants, 24 (43.6%) were confirmed de novo, and 27 (49%) were inherited, underscoring the utility of performing trio ES. Parental samples were unavailable for 4 probands, and thus the inheritance of their variants could not be determined. Twenty-six informative variants (47.3%) were listed in ClinVar as of June 30, 2023. Interestingly, the other twenty-nine informative variants (52.7%) were not listed in ClinVar, of which sixteen were predicted as P/LP and twelve as VUS according to ACMG criteria. In summary, more than half of informative variants had not been reported in public databases at the time of this writing.

Finally, to assess for factors associated with higher likelihood of informative findings, we performed bivariate and multivariate analysis of probands´ demographics and clinical phenotypes using logistic regression. In the bivariate analyses, the presence of neurologic abnormalities and immune dysfunction were associated with the diagnostic yield. In the multivariate analysis, being in the 12–18 years of age group, and entering the study due to isolated immune dysfunction, were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with diagnostic yield (Table 4).

This is the first reported experience of a local implementation program for the genetic evaluation of patients with RUD in Chile using exome sequencing. The process allowed us to establish a trained team for clinical assessment and exome analysis through a rigorous pipeline that enabled the diagnosis in approximately half of the study participants. It also permitted tens of patients with severe previously undiagnosed disorders to receive information on the cause of their condition.

The process of implementation highlights the relevance of international collaboration to obtain critical knowledge and training when these resources are unavailable locally. To circumvent the lack of genomic capabilities at scale in Chile, our strategy relied on outsourcing the sequencing component, while leveraging and developing capacities in the clinical evaluation and bioinformatics analysis that can be performed in-house. Albeit the use of a commercially available interpretation platform increases the costs compared to the use of freely available software, we opted for the former for data security reasons, consistency in the analyses, and to build this project with standards that could be transferred to a clinical laboratory. The hybrid strategy used in DECIPHERD can serve as an intermediate step in establishing autonomous local genomic services for undiagnosed diseases and other genetic conditions in settings of similar limited resources.

As result of the study, we were able to identify a molecular etiology for almost half of the participants across a wide range of clinical phenotypes. This is similar to published data from large studies in European and North American populations (10, 25) and higher than studies in Argentina and Brazil, reporting detection rates of 30–40% (26, 27). Our approach also identified patients in special situations, such as known dominant conditions presenting in probably recessive forms, and also of potential dual diagnosis.

ES had higher diagnostic yield than CES in this study. We explored the latter strategy in the initial phase of the program, given the available local sequencing capacities and published reports showing that proband-only CES could be a cost-effective solution in resource-limited settings (28). Nevertheless, the use of CES limits the identification of potential novel candidate genes, which can be of special relevance in understudied populations. In addition, and as seen in other admixed populations, de novo variants were a major contributor to the severe phenotypes observed in the patients. (10, 25, 29, 30). The ES pipeline also allowed detection of both SNVs and CNVs, demonstrating the benefits of a single integrated genomic test for persons with RUD. These observations provide arguments in favor of the recommendation for trio ES analysis to increase diagnostic rates this population.

Regarding the inherited variants, three of the eight patients with homozygous findings reported parental consanguinity. This information may have been unknown or undeclared by the rest of the families, or the findings may alternatively suggest founder effects that may be of relevance to the broader Chilean population.

Importantly, almost half of our informative findings have not been previously described in large, publicly available population or clinical databases such as gnomAD and ClinVar. This highlights the need to increase diversity of genomic variation studies, since including understudied populations can make substantial contributions to relevant new knowledge, valuable for clinical and other genomic applications (31–33).

The presence of neurologic findings (mainly intellectual disability) was positively associated with diagnostic yield, while immune dysfunction was negatively associated. The former is similar to the recent findings of Wright et al ((10), but we did not find other statistically significant and clinically relevant associations as shown in their study. This could be due to the small sample size that limits statistical power. It is relevant to note that all probands entering the study due to dysfunction of the immune system had prior negative gene panel testing, while the remaining patients had more heterogeneous pre-entry genetic testing.

Limitations of our study included the relatively small sample size and the small number of samples that underwent head-to-head comparison of results which precluded an in-depth analysis of performance metrics in this implementation process. Pre-inclusion clinical evaluations were very heterogeneous among participants as mentioned above, owing to the different availability of genetic services across the country. Despite DECIPHERD´s efforts to have broad geographic representation and work as a country-wide network, most of the participants came from the Metropolitan Region of Santiago, which has the largest concentration of the population and even disproportionately larger concentration of medical subspecialists ((16). Despite these limitations and potential biases, this work likely represents a “real-world” situation for Chilean RUD patients.

Several next steps are necessary to increase the diagnostic yield and to implement genomic sequencing in the Chilean health care system. First, the study of this understudied population has the potential of identifying variants in novel, unassociated candidate genes. Selected variants in novel candidate genes have been shared in GeneMatcher (34) and connections with colleagues worldwide are underway. We anticipate this may contribute to the discovery of new genetically determined disorders. Second, reanalysis has proven to improve diagnostic yield of genomic testing based on new discoveries and updated bioinformatic tools (25). Our team is committed to reanalyzing exome results of this cohort after at least one year of initial analysis, and we predict this could also contribute to improving the diagnostic yield. In addition, we plan to analyze secondary findings among the families that consented to receive secondary findings, which may lead to additional clinically relevant findings. It would be ideal to also implement other strategies such as genome and/or transcriptome sequencing to further increase diagnostic yield for patients with non-informative or partially informative findings (35–37).

Nevertheless, local implementation of a sequencing pipeline is still hindered by prohibitive costs. If prices drop to cost-efficient levels for LMIC countries, it may be feasible to implement NGS at scale in our country. Sample volume is a pricing factor, particularly in a small country, and therefore collaboration between different areas and centers that use NGS can also facilitate the development of local sequencing centers. Formal and more extensive training of clinical, laboratory and bioinformatics workforce is also crucial, along with certification and accreditation. Performing testing in the country is key for patient access, as the Chilean health system does not provide financial coverage for testing performed abroad.

Another crucial element to consider for decision-makers is the impact of reaching a diagnosis. In parallel to the diagnostic pipeline described in this article, our team is collecting quantitative and qualitative information on the effects of achieving a genetic diagnosis for patients, caregivers, healthcare teams and the healthcare system to contribute with locally pertinent data and insights that can guide the elaboration of national policies.

Our work highlights the feasibility of establishing a program for rare and undiagnosed diseases in a country with limited genomic capabilities. This is aligned with the World Health Organizations call to advance genomic medicine worldwide (14), and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to “leave no one behind” (38), and we expect this work may be useful for other countries in similar situations to develop their own RUD programs.

Data Availability Statement: The dataset that was generated and/or analyzed as part of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. All novel pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants will be deposited in ClinVar.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank all participating patients and families.

Funding: ANID-Chile grants Fondecyt # 1211411 (GMR), 11220642 (BR-J) and #1221802 (MCP), International Networks #180047 (GMR), Fondequip EQM #150093 (BR-J) and #220062 (GMR) and a donation from the Child Health Foundation, Birmingham, AL.

Author Contribution Statement: CP, BR-J and GMR: conceptualization, data curation and formal analysis, manuscript writing and editing. GE, CL, JO, DM: NGS wet lab. CP, BRJ, GE, CL, LMM, JO, DB, JDLC, VF, GMR: bioinformatic analysis. GM, VF, MJZ, TH, SF, CA, GL, CC, MA, ESM: presented patients and participated in analysis. JRL, JEP, ZGA provided guidance and training for the team, sequencing and bioinformatics analysis capacities and critically reviewed the manuscript for scientific content. All authors approved the manuscript.

Ethical Approval: The project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee at Facultad de Medicina, Clinica Alemana Universidad del Desarrollo (approval #2018-045) and all participants and/or guardians gave written informed consent.

Competing Interests. The authors declare no competing interest in this work.

Nguengang Wakap S, Lambert DM, Olry A, Rodwell C, Gueydan C, Lanneau V, et al. Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the Orphanet database. European Journal of Human Genetics. 2020;28(2):165–73.
World Bank. Population, Total and Low and Middle Income Countries 2021 [Internet] [cited 2023 Jun 19]. Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=XO&name_desc=false
Dharssi S, Wong-Rieger D, Harold M, Terry S. Review of 11 national policies for rare diseases in the context of key patient needs. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2017;12(1):63.
Boycott KM, Rath A, Chong JX, Hartley T, Alkuraya FS, Baynam G, et al. International Cooperation to Enable the Diagnosis of All Rare Genetic Diseases. Am J Hum Genet;100(5):695–705.
Malinowski J, Miller DT, Demmer L, Gannon J, Pereira EM, Schroeder MC, et al. Systematic evidence-based review: outcomes from exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability. Genetics in Medicine. 2020;22(6):986–1004.
Manickam K, McClain MR, Demmer LA, Biswas S, Kearney HM, Malinowski J, et al. Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med 2021;23(11):2029–37.
Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K, Wilson W, Mupfeki N, Macciocca I, et al. Prospective comparison of the cost-effectiveness of clinical whole-exome sequencing with that of usual care overwhelmingly supports early use and reimbursement. Genetics in Medicine. 2017;19(8):867–74.
Stark Z, Schofield D, Martyn M, Rynehart L, Shrestha R, Alam K, et al. Does genomic sequencing early in the diagnostic trajectory make a difference? A follow-up study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Genetics in Medicine. 2019;21(1):173–80.
Tan TY, Dillon OJ, Stark Z, Schofield D, Alam K, Shrestha R, et al. Diagnostic Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Whole-Exome Sequencing for Ambulant Children With Suspected Monogenic Conditions. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(9):855–62.
Wright CF, Campbell P, Eberhardt RY, Aitken S, Perrett D, Brent S, et al. Genomic Diagnosis of Rare Pediatric Disease in the United Kingdom and Ireland. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(17):1559–71.
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). Clinical and research tests for exome - Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) [Internet]. [cited 2023 Jul 1]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/all/tests/?term=exome
Hamadeh N, Van Rompaey C, Metreu E, Eapen SG. New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2022–2023 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 Jul 16]. Available from: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2022-2023
Taruscio D, Salvatore M, Lumaka A, Carta C, Cellai LL, Ferrari G, et al. Undiagnosed diseases: Needs and opportunities in 20 countries participating in the Undiagnosed Diseases Network International. Front Public Health. 2023;11: 1079601
World Health Organization. Accelerating access to genomics for global health Promotion, implementation, collaboration, and ethical, legal, and social issues. A report of the WHO Science Council. 2022;1–46. [cited 2023 May 10] Available https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/359560
Adachi T, El-Hattab AW, Jain R, Crespo KAN, Lazo CIQ, Scarpa M, et al. Enhancing Equitable Access to Rare Disease Diagnosis and Treatment around the World: A Review of Evidence, Policies, and Challenges. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20(6):4732. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36981643
Encina G, Castillo-Laborde C, Lecaros JA, Dubois-Camacho K, Calderón JFJF, Aguilera X, et al. Rare diseases in Chile: Challenges and recommendations in universal health coverage context. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):289
Patrinos G, Lopez-Correa C. Genomic Medicine in Emerging Economies: Genomics for Every Nation. Academic Press Inc.; 2018.
Köhler S, Vasilevsky NA, Engelstad M, Foster E, McMurry J, Aymé S, et al. The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4 [cited 2019 Mar 21];45(D1):D865–76.
Davis MW, Jorgensen EM. ApE, A Plasmid Editor: A Freely Available DNA Manipulation and Visualization Program. Frontiers in bioinformatics. 2022 Feb 4 [cited 2023 Jul 29];2.
Özen S. Changing concepts in familial Mediterranean fever: Is it possible to have an autosomal-recessive disease with only one mutation? Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60(6):1575–7.
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.
Vujic M, Heyer CM, Ars E, Hopp K, Markoff A, Örndal C, et al. Incompletely penetrant PKD1 alleles mimic the renal manifestations of ARPKD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2010;21(7):1097–102.
Powis Z, Farwell Hagman KD, Mroske C, McWalter K, Cohen JS, Colombo R, et al. Expansion and further delineation of the SETD5 phenotype leading to global developmental delay, variable dysmorphic features, and reduced penetrance. Clin Genet 2018;93(4):752–61.
Szczałuba K, Brzezinska M, Kot J, Rydzanicz M, Walczak A, Stawiński P, et al. SETD5 loss-of-function mutation as a likely cause of a familial syndromic intellectual disability with variable phenotypic expression. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(9):2322–7.
Liu P, Meng L, Normand EA, Xia F, Song X, Ghazi A, et al. Reanalysis of clinical exome sequencing data. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(25):2478–2480.
Quaio CRDC, Moreira CM, Chung CH, Perazzio SF, Dutra AP, Kim CA. Exome sequencing of 500 Brazilian patients with rare diseases: what we have learned. Sao Paulo Med J 2022;140(5):734–6.
Koile D, Cordoba M, de Sousa Serro M, Kauffman MA, Yankilevich P. GenIO: a phenotype-genotype analysis web server for clinical genomics of rare diseases. BMC Bioinformatics. 2018;19(1).
Hu X, Li N, Xu Y, Li G, Yu T, Yao R en, et al. Proband-only medical exome sequencing as a cost-effective first-tier genetic diagnostic test for patients without prior molecular tests and clinical diagnosis in a developing country: the China experience. Genetics in Medicine. 2018;20(9):1045–53.
Veltman JA, Brunner HG. De novo mutations in human genetic disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13(8):565–75.
Mohiuddin M, Kooy RF, Pearson CE. De novo mutations, genetic mosaicism and human disease. Front Genet. 2022;13: 983668
Rocha CS, Secolin R, Rodrigues MR, Carvalho BS, Lopes-Cendes I. The Brazilian Initiative on Precision Medicine (BIPMed): fostering genomic data-sharing of underrepresented populations. NPJ Genom Med. 2020;5(1).
Peña-Chilet M, Roldán G, Perez-Florido J, Ortuño FM, Carmona R, Aquino V, et al. CSVS, a crowdsourcing database of the Spanish population genetic variability. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D1130–7
Coban-Akdemir Z, Song X, Ceballos FC, Davut Pehlivan †, Karaca E, Bayram Y, et al. The impact of the Turkish (TK) population variome on the genomic architecture of rare disease traits. bioRxiv 2023;2020.04.27.064824.
Sobreira NLM, Arachchi H, Buske OJ, Chong JX, Hutton B, Foreman J, et al. Matchmaker Exchange. In: Current Protocols in Human Genetics. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 201. p. 9.31.1–9.31.15.
Costain G, Walker S, Marano M, Veenma D, Snell M, Curtis M, et al. Genome Sequencing as a Diagnostic Test in Children With Unexplained Medical Complexity. JAMA Netw Open 2020;3(9):e2018109
Deshwar AR, Yuki KE, Hou H, Liang Y, Khan T, Celik A, et al. Trio RNA sequencing in a cohort of medically complex children. Am J Hum Genet. 2023;110(5):895–900.
Frésard L, Montgomery SB. Diagnosing rare diseases after the exome. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2018;4(6): a003392
United Nations Group for Sustainable Development Goals. Leaving No One Behind: Equality and Non-Discrimination at the Heart of Sustainable Development [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 Jun 16]. Available from: https://unsceb.org/sites/default/files/imported_files/CEB equality framework-A4-web-rev3.pdf

Tables 1-4 is available in the Supplementary Files section.

There is no duality of interest

Table1.xlsx
Table 1
Table2.xlsx
Table 2
Table3.xlsx
Table 3
Table4.xlsx
Table 4
SupplementaryTable1.xlsx
Supplementary Table 1. Clinical inclusion criteria at study entry

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 04 Jan, 2024

Read the published version in European Journal of Human Genetics →

Editorial decision: revise
03 Oct, 2023
Review #2 received at journal
05 Sep, 2023
Reviewer #2 agreed at journal
05 Sep, 2023
Review #1 received at journal
02 Sep, 2023
Reviewer #1 agreed at journal
02 Sep, 2023
Reviewer #3 agreed at journal
30 Aug, 2023
Reviewers invited by journal
29 Aug, 2023
Submission checks completed at journal
04 Aug, 2023
First submitted to journal
03 Aug, 2023
Unknown event
03 Aug, 2023
Editor assigned by journal
03 Aug, 2023

You are reading this latest preprint version

Decoding Complex Inherited Phenotypes in Rare Disorders: The DECIPHERD initiative for rare undiagnosed diseases in Chile.

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Participants

Samples and DNA extraction

Exome sequencing and bioinformatics pipelines

Training phase

Local development phase

Clinical interpretation

Statistical analysis

Results

Demographic and clinical characterization of patients

Comparison of findings in the training and initial development phase

Exome analysis

Discussion

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1