PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 42396270

Structural variant discovery and diagnostic impact in rare diseases from short-read and long-read sequencing.

Abstract

Rare diseases collectively affect 1 in 10 individuals, yet current genetic testing fails to identify a causal variant for most cases. At present, cytogenetic methods and/or sequencing approaches such as exome (ES) or short-read genome sequencing (srGS) represent the state-of-the-art for comprehensive clinical discovery of sequence and structural variants (SVs), including copy number variants, balanced SVs, complex SVs, and tandem repeats (TRs). Recently, long-read genome sequencing (lrGS), coupled with multiomics data, has presented great promise to resolve variation in genomic regions recalcitrant to characterization by srGS such as highly repetitive simple repeat sequences and segmental duplications. However, there are few guidelines to enable clinical interpretation of genetic variation in these highly repetitive genomic regions, and the enthusiasm of the field in adopting lrGS has made it difficult to assess the true added diagnostic yield of this technology due to widely variable and inconsistently applied analytic pipelines and variable degrees of pre-screening by ES or srGS. Here, we investigated the contribution of SVs to rare diseases using srGS as a front-line strategy when paired with highly sensitive SV discovery and evaluate the added diagnostic yield of incorporating lrGS for a subset of cases. Our srGS analysis encompassed 1,462 families (3,450 individuals) recruited through the Broad Institute Center for Mendelian Genetics and the Genomics Research to Elucidate the Genetics of Rare Diseases (GREGoR) programs. Diagnostic SVs were identified in 5.4% of cases (79/1,462), of which 80% were uniquely detectable by srGS compared to standard cytogenetic techniques. For 96 families (including 10 families with a heterozygous variant observed in a known recessive gene of clinical relevance), we performed lrGS with methylation profiling, as well as long-read transcriptomic analyses in a subset of 20 trios. Analyses with lrGS yielded over 25,000 SVs per genome, 63% of which were not captured by srGS, along with an additional ~200 rare SNV/indels per genome not previously captured and 12 differentially methylated regions per genome. Among these, we identified only one diagnostic variant not interpreted by srGS, an apparently mosaic de novo SNV in CASK that was absent in the srGS callset due to allelic imbalance. No new diagnoses were supported by long-read transcriptomics or episignatures. In this well characterized rare disease cohort, the added diagnostic yield was thus 1.04% (1/96 families). Following a systematic literature review of prior lrGS studies, we find that most reported diagnoses were detectable by srGS and that our added diagnostic yield is consistent with those prior studies. These studies emphasize the significant impact of comprehensive SV discovery in rare disease cases and further demonstrate the power for increased discovery of novel genomic variation and episignatures from lrGS. Nonetheless, they also serve to temper expectations of dramatic diagnostic advances in rare disease patients until there is more extensive annotation of the functional and clinical impact of all coding and noncoding variation uniquely accessible to lrGS with extensive reference databases spanning highly repetitive genomic sequencing that could be enabled by this transformative technology.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alba Sanchis-Juan, Yulia Mostovoy, Sarah L Stenton, Vijay S Ganesh, Ben Weisburd, Alex Yenkin, Nehir E Kurtas, Xuefang Zhao, Eren Shin, Philip M Boone, Hang Su, Arthur S Lee, Rachita Yadav, Kirsten Allan, Emanuela Argilli, Christina Austin-Tse, Brenda J Barry, Samantha Baxter, Alan H Beggs, Katrina M Bell, Benjamin Blankenmeister, Carsten G Bönnemann, Catherine A Brownstein, Kinga M Bujakowska, Elizabeth Carbonell, Sandra T Cooper, Laura E Covill, Stephanie DiTroia, Sandra Donkervoort, Elizabeth C Engle, Lyndon Gallacher, Casie A Genetti, Joseph G Gleeson, Bin Guan, Stacey Hall, Friedhelm Hildebrandt, Robert B Hufnagel, Julie A Jurgens, Akanksha Khorgade, Gabrielle Lemire, Emily Liau, Jialan Ma, Jill A Madden, Brian Mangilog, Brandy M McNulty, Olfa Messaoud, Shloka Negi, Emily O'Heir, Melanie C O'Leary, Ikeoluwa Osei-Owusu, Katrin Õunap, Lynn Pais, Sander Pajusalu, Alicia Pham, Eric A Pierce, Emma Pierce-Hoffman, Gianina Ravenscroft, Tony Roscioli, Vijay G Sankaran, Jillian Serrano, Elliott H Sherr, Shirlee Shril, Moriel Singer-Berk, Hana Snow, Volker Straub, Derek Tai, Tiong Y Tan, Ana Töpf, Ehsan Ullah, Grace VanNoy, Ivo Violich, Mark Walker, Susan M White, Monica H Wojcik, Emma Mitchell, Aziz M Al'Khafaji, Sheila Dodge, Kiran Garimella, Niall J Lennon, Stacey B Gabriel, Karen H Miga, Benedict Paten, Heidi L Rehm, Anne O'Donnell-Luria, Harrison Brand, Michael E Talkowski. 2026-06-24. Structural variant discovery and diagnostic impact in rare diseases from short-read and long-read sequencing.. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.22.26356238

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article