Objective: To compare available analysis methods for determining fetal fraction on single read next generation sequencing data. This is important as the performance of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) procedures depends on the fraction of fetal DNA. Methods: We tested six different methods for the detection of fetal fraction in NIPT samples. The same clinically obtained data were used for all methods, allowing us to assess the effect of fetal fraction on the test result, and to investigate the use of fetal fraction for quality control. Results: We show that non-NIPT methods based on body mass index (BMI) and gestational age are unreliable predictors of fetal fraction, male pregnancy specific methods based on read counts on the Y chromosome perform consistently and the fetal sex-independent new methods SeqFF and SANEFALCON are less reliable but can be used to obtain a basic indication of fetal fraction in case of a female fetus. Conclusion: We recommend the use of a combination of methods to prevent the issue of reports on samples with insufficient fetal DNA; SANEFALCON to check for presence of fetal DNA, SeqFF for estimating the fetal fraction for a female pregnancy and any Y-based method for estimating the fetal fraction for a male pregnancy.

@en

Accumulating evidence suggests that genetic variants in the SORL1 gene are associated with Alzheimer disease (AD), but a strategy to identify which variants are pathogenic is lacking. In a discovery sample of 115 SORL1 variants detected in 1908 Dutch AD cases and controls, we identified the variant characteristics associated with SORL1 variant pathogenicity. Findings were replicated in an independent sample of 103 SORL1 variants detected in 3193 AD cases and controls. In a combined sample of the discovery and replication samples, comprising 181 unique SORL1 variants, we developed a strategy to classify SORL1 variants into five subtypes ranging from pathogenic to benign. We tested this pathogenicity screen in SORL1 variants reported in two independent published studies. SORL1 variant pathogenicity is defined by the Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD) score and the minor allele frequency (MAF) reported by the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database. Variants predicted strongly damaging (CADD score >30), which are extremely rare (ExAC-MAF <1 × 10 '5) increased AD risk by 12-fold (95% CI 4.2-34.3; P=5 × 10 '9). Protein-truncating SORL1 mutations were all unknown to ExAC and occurred exclusively in AD cases. More common SORL1 variants (ExAC-MAF≥1 × 10 '5) were not associated with increased AD risk, even when predicted strongly damaging. Findings were independent of gender and the APOE-I 4 allele. High-risk SORL1 variants were observed in a substantial proportion of the AD cases analyzed (2%). Based on their effect size, we propose to consider high-risk SORL1 variants next to variants in APOE, PSEN1, PSEN2 and APP for personalized risk assessments in clinical practice.

@en

No abstract is available for this article. @en

In clinical genetics, detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNVs) as well as copy number variations (CNVs) is essential for patient genotyping. Obtaining both CNV and SNV information from WES data would significantly simplify clinical workflow. Unfortunately, the sequence reads obtained with WES vary between samples, complicating accurate CNV detection with WES. To avoid being dependent on other samples, we developed a within-sample comparison approach (WISExome). For every (WES) target region on the genome, we identified a set of reference target regions elsewhere on the genome with similar read frequency behavior. For a new sample, aberrations are detected by comparing the read frequency of a target region with the distribution of read frequencies in the reference set. WISExome correctly identifies known pathogenic CNVs (range 4 Kb–5.2 Mb). Moreover, WISExome prioritizes pathogenic CNVs by sorting them on quality and annotations of overlapping genes in OMIM. When comparing WISExome to four existing CNV detection tools, we found that CoNIFER detects much fewer CNVs and XHMM breaks calls made by other tools into smaller calls (fragmentation). CODEX and CLAMMS seem to perform more similar to WISExome. CODEX finds all known pathogenic CNVs, but detects much more calls than all other methods. CLAMMS and WISExome agree the most. CLAMMS does, however, miss one of the known CNVs and shows slightly more fragmentation. Taken together, WISExome is a promising tool for genome diagnostics laboratories as the workflow can be solely based on WES data.@en