Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 28, 2025
Detecting Somatic Genetic Alterations in Tumor Specimens by Exon Capture and Massively Parallel Sequencing
Published on: October 18, 2013
Beyond Panel-Based Testing: Exome Analysis Increases Sensitivity for Diagnosis of Genetic Kidney Disease
Parker C Wilson1, Latisha Love-Gregory1, Meagan Corliss2
1Division of Anatomic and Molecular Pathology, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Background:
Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a useful tool for evaluating patients with suspected genetic kidney disease. Clinical practice relies on the use of targeted gene panels that are ordered based on patient presentation. We compare the diagnostic yield of clinical panel-based testing to exome analysis.
Methods:
In total, 324 consecutive patients underwent physician-ordered, panel-based NGS testing between December 2014 and October 2018. Gene panels were available for four clinical phenotypes, including atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (n=224), nephrotic syndrome (n=56), cystic kidney disease (n=26), and Alport syndrome (n=13). Variants were analyzed and clinical reports were signed out by a pathologist or clinical geneticist at the time of testing. Subsequently, all patients underwent retrospective exome analysis to detect additional clinically significant variants in kidney disease genes that were not analyzed as part of the initial clinical gene panel. Resulting variants were classified according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2015 guidelines.
Results:
In the initial physician-ordered gene panels, we identified clinically significant pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in 13% of patients (n=42/324). CFHR3-CFHR1 homozygous deletion was detected in an additional 13 patients with aHUS without a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant. Diagnostic yield of the initial physician-ordered gene panel was 20% and varied between groups. Retrospective exome analysis identified 18 patients with a previously unknown pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a kidney disease gene and eight patients with a high-risk APOL1 genotype. Overall, retrospective exome analysis increased the diagnostic yield of panel-based testing from 20% to 30%.
Conclusions:
These results highlight the importance of a broad and collaborative approach between the clinical laboratory and their physician clients that employs additional analysis when a targeted panel of kidney disease-causing genes does not return a clinically meaningful result.
