Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Incomplete annotation of OMIM genes is likely to be limiting the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, particularly for neurogenetic disorders

David Zhang, Sebastian Guelfi, Sonia Garcia Ruiz, Beatrice Costa, Regina H. Reynolds, Karishma D’Sa, Wenfei Liu, Thomas Courtin, Amy Peterson, View ORCID ProfileAndrew E. Jaffe, John Hardy, Juan Botia, Leonardo Collado-Torres, Mina Ryten
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/499103
David Zhang
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sebastian Guelfi
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sonia Garcia Ruiz
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Beatrice Costa
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Regina H. Reynolds
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karishma D’Sa
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wenfei Liu
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas Courtin
2Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Université Paris 06, UMR S 1127, Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, ICM, Paris, France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Amy Peterson
3Lieber Institute for Brain Development, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew E. Jaffe
3Lieber Institute for Brain Development, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
4Center for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
5Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
6Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
7McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
8Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Andrew E. Jaffe
John Hardy
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juan Botia
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
9Departamento de Ingeniería de la Información y las Comunicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 30100, Murcia, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Leonardo Collado-Torres
3Lieber Institute for Brain Development, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
4Center for Computational Biology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mina Ryten
1Institute of Neurology, University College London (UCL), London, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Although the increasing use of whole-exome and whole-genome sequencing have improved the yield of genetic testing for Mendelian disorders, an estimated 50% of patients still leave the clinic without a genetic diagnosis. This can be attributed in part to our lack of ability to accurately interpret the genetic variation detected through next-generation sequencing. Variant interpretation is fundamentally reliant on accurate and complete gene annotation, however numerous reports and discrepancies between gene annotation databases reveals that the knowledge of gene annotation remains far from comprehensive. Here, we detect and validate transcription in an annotation-agnostic manner across all 41 different GTEx tissues, then connect novel transcription to known genes, ultimately improving the annotation of 63% of the known OMIM-morbid genes. We find the majority of novel transcription to be tissue-specific in origin, with brain tissues being most susceptible to misannotation. Furthermore, we find that novel transcribed regions tend to be poorly conserved, but are significantly depleted for genetic variation within humans, suggesting they are functionally significant and potentially have human-specific functions. We present our findings through an online platform vizER, which enables individual genes to be visualised and queried for evidence of misannotation. We also release all tissue-specific transcriptomes in a BED format for ease of integration with whole-genome sequencing data. We anticipate that these resources will improve the diagnostic yield for a wide range of Mendelian disorders.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 19, 2018.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Incomplete annotation of OMIM genes is likely to be limiting the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, particularly for neurogenetic disorders
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Incomplete annotation of OMIM genes is likely to be limiting the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, particularly for neurogenetic disorders
David Zhang, Sebastian Guelfi, Sonia Garcia Ruiz, Beatrice Costa, Regina H. Reynolds, Karishma D’Sa, Wenfei Liu, Thomas Courtin, Amy Peterson, Andrew E. Jaffe, John Hardy, Juan Botia, Leonardo Collado-Torres, Mina Ryten
bioRxiv 499103; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/499103
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Incomplete annotation of OMIM genes is likely to be limiting the diagnostic yield of genetic testing, particularly for neurogenetic disorders
David Zhang, Sebastian Guelfi, Sonia Garcia Ruiz, Beatrice Costa, Regina H. Reynolds, Karishma D’Sa, Wenfei Liu, Thomas Courtin, Amy Peterson, Andrew E. Jaffe, John Hardy, Juan Botia, Leonardo Collado-Torres, Mina Ryten
bioRxiv 499103; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/499103

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Bioinformatics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4237)
  • Biochemistry (9155)
  • Bioengineering (6797)
  • Bioinformatics (24052)
  • Biophysics (12149)
  • Cancer Biology (9562)
  • Cell Biology (13814)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7653)
  • Ecology (11730)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15534)
  • Genetics (10663)
  • Genomics (14346)
  • Immunology (9503)
  • Microbiology (22880)
  • Molecular Biology (9117)
  • Neuroscience (49080)
  • Paleontology (357)
  • Pathology (1487)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2576)
  • Physiology (3851)
  • Plant Biology (8347)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1473)
  • Synthetic Biology (2299)
  • Systems Biology (6202)
  • Zoology (1302)