Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Neurological disorders (ND) are diseases that affect the brain and the central and autonomic nervous systems, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, cerebellar ataxias, Parkinson's disease, or epilepsies. Nowadays, recommendations of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics strongly recommend applying next generation sequencing (NGS) as a first-line test in patients with these disorders. Whole exome sequencing (WES) is widely regarded as the current technology of choice for diagnosing monogenic ND. The introduction of NGS allows for rapid and inexpensive large-scale genomic analysis and has led to enormous progress in deciphering monogenic forms of various genetic diseases. The simultaneous analysis of several potentially mutated genes improves the diagnostic process, making it faster and more efficient. The main aim of this report is to discuss the impact and advantages of the implementation of WES into the clinical diagnosis and management of ND. Therefore, we have performed a retrospective evaluation of WES application in 209 cases referred to the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona for WES sequencing derived from neurologists or clinical geneticists. In addition, we have further discussed some important facts regarding classification criteria for pathogenicity of rare variants, variants of unknown significance, deleterious variants, different clinical phenotypes, or frequency of actionable secondary findings. Different studies have shown that WES implementation establish diagnostic rate around 32% in ND and the continuous molecular diagnosis is essential to solve the remaining cases.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.