Copy-number variants (CNVs) of uncertain clinical significance are routinely reported in a clinical setting only when exceeding predetermined reporting thresholds, typically based on CNV size. Given that very few genes are associated with triplosensitive phenotypes, it is not surprising that many interstitial duplications <1 Mb are found to be inherited and anticipated to be of limited or no clinical significance.
In an effort to further refine our reporting criteria to maximize diagnostic yield while minimizing the return of uncertain variants, we performed a retrospective analysis of all clinical microarray cases reported in a 10-year window. A total of 1112 reported duplications had parental follow-up, and these were compared by size, RefSeq gene content, and inheritance pattern. De novo origin was used as a rough proxy for pathogenicity.
Approximately 6% of duplications 500 kb–1 Mb were de novo observations, compared with approximately 14% for 1–2 Mb duplications (p = 0.0005). On average, de novo duplications had higher gene counts than inherited duplications.
Our data reveal limited diagnostic utility for duplications of uncertain significance <1 Mb. Considerations for revised reporting criteria are discussed and are applicable to CNVs detected by any genome-wide exploratory methodology, including exome/genome sequencing.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $41.58 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Schwartz S. Clinical utility of single nucleotide polymorphism arrays. Clin Lab Med. 2011;31:581–594.
Kearney HM, South ST, Wolff DJ, et al. American College of Medical Genetics recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities. Genet Med. 2011;13:676–679.
Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, et al. Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. Am J Hum Genet. 2010;86:749–764.
Manning M, Hudgins L, Professional Practice and Guidelines Committee. Array-based technology and recommendations for utilization in medical genetics practice for detection of chromosomal abnormalities. Genet Med. 2010;12:742–745.
Stavropoulos DJ, Merico D, Jobling R, et al. Whole genome sequencing expands diagnostic utility and improves clinical management in pediatric medicine. NPJ Genom Med. 2016;1:15012.
Shaffer LG, Beaudet AL, Brothman AR, et al. Microarray analysis for constitutional cytogenetic abnormalities. Genet Med. 2007;9:654–662.
South ST, Lee C, Lamb AN, et al. ACMG Standards and Guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013. Genet Med. 2013;15:901–909.
Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, et al. Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). Genet Med. 2020;22:245–257.
Kang SH, Shaw C, Ou Z, et al. Insertional translocation detected using FISH confirmation of array-comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) results. Am J Med Genet A. 2010;152A:1111–1126.
Neill NJ, Ballif BC, Lamb AN, et al. Recurrence, submicroscopic complexity, and potential clinical relevance of copy gains detected by array CGH that are shown to be unbalanced insertions by FISH. Genome Res. 2011;21:535–544.
Zepeda-Mendoza CJ, Ibn-Salem J, Kammin T, et al. Computational prediction of position effects of apparently balanced human chromosomal rearrangements. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;101:206–217.
Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/projects/dbvar/clingen/index.shtml. Accessed March 2020.
MacDonald JR, Ziman R, Yuen RK, et al. The Database of Genomic Variants: a curated collection of structural variation in the human genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D986–992.
Newman S, Hermetz KE, Weckselblatt B, et al. Next-generation sequencing of duplication CNVs reveals that most are tandem and some create fusion genes at breakpoints. Am J Hum Genet. 2015;96:208–220.
Kearney HM, Thorland EC, Brown KK, et al. American College of Medical Genetics standards and guidelines for interpretation and reporting of postnatal constitutional copy number variants. Genet Med. 2011;13:680–685.
Riggs ER, Church DM, Hanson K, et al. Towards an evidence-based process for the clinical interpretation of copy number variation. Clin Genet. 2012;81:403–412.
Itsara A, Wu H, Smith JD, et al. De novo rates and selection of large copy number variation. Genome Res. 2010;20:1469–1481.
Brock DJ, Shrimpton AE. Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet. 1991;338:1151.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Marcou, C.A., Pitel, B., Hagen, C.E. et al. Limited diagnostic impact of duplications <1 Mb of uncertain clinical significance: a 10-year retrospective analysis of reporting practices at the Mayo Clinic. Genet Med (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-020-0932-0
- copy-number variant
- reporting criteria