Introduction
Although we inherit the vast majority of genomic variants from our parents, a small fraction of variants arises
Therefore, DNVs are important candidates to pursue as a cause for disease, particularly in rare, sporadic phenotypes (Lynch, 2010; Veltman and Brunner, 2012; Vissers et al., 2010). The presence of such candidate DNVs can be assessed by trio-based sequencing, in which the patient is sequenced together with the (healthy) parents (Acuna-Hidalgo et al., 2016). Most experience with the systematic diagnostic assessment of DNVs has been gained in the field of developmental disorders, in which DNVs have been shown to constitute up to 50% of disease-causing mutations (Vissers et al., 2010; Martin et al., 2018; Kaplanis et al., 2020). However, the contribution of DNVs in the pathogenesis of other disorders such as inborn errors of immunity (IEI) is less clear.
DNVs as the underlying cause in IEI patients have been widely reported in literature, but most of these mutations were determined to be
The current study has aimed to explore the potential added value of systematic assessment of DNVs in a retrospective cohort of 123 patients with a suspected, sporadic IEI that underwent trio-based WES.
Materials and methods
Patients and samples
We retrospectively screened patient-parent trios that were submitted to Genome Diagnostics at the Department of Human Genetics in the Radboud University Medical Center (RUMC) between May 2013 and November 2021. Patient-parent trios were selected for systematic DNV analysis when fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: (1) the patient’s phenotype was sporadic, (2) the clinical description was suspect for an inborn error of immunity (IEI), and (3) the
Figure 1.
Schematic overview of patient inclusion,
Of the 146 eligible patient-parent trios, 123 trios met the inclusion criteria for this IEI cohort study. Whole exome sequencing data from these patient-parent trios was filtered to retain rare, non-synonymous candidate
Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
Distribution of rare, non-synonymous coding
As described previously (Arts et al., 2019), patients and their parents provided written informed consent for
For the systematic DNV analysis in this study, WES data of all subjects was pseudonymised. This entailed the at random enciphering of patient DNA numbers to ascending numbers by a Genome Diagnostics member. In addition, clinical descriptions were condensed and classified according to the International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS) classification (Bousfiha et al., 2020). Some of the included trios were part of previous publications: one was published as a clinical case report by D’hauw
Diagnostic whole exome sequencing
WES was performed as described earlier with minor modifications (Lelieveld et al., 2016). In brief, genomic DNA samples isolated from whole blood were processed at the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) Europe (BGI Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark) or the in-house sequencing facility. All samples were enriched for exonic DNA using Agilent (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, United States) or Twist (Twist Bioscience, San Francisco, CA, United States) exome kits. DNA samples at BGI were sequenced on Illumina HiSeq4000 (Illumina Sequencing, San Diego, CA, United States) or DNBseq (MGI Tech, Shenzhen, China). In-house DNA samples were sequenced on Illumina NovaSeq6000 (Illumina Sequencing). Sequencing was performed with 2x100 base pair (DNBseq) or 2x150 base pair (HiSeq4000 and NovaSeq6000) paired-end sequencing reads. The average median sequence coverage was 124x with an average of 96% target coverage greater than 20x (Figure 1—source data 1).
Downstream processing was performed by an automated data analysis pipeline, including mapping of sequencing reads to the GRCh37/hg19 reference genome with the Burrows-Wheeler Aligner algorithm and Genome Analysis Toolkit variant calling and additional custom-made annotation (Li and Durbin, 2010; McKenna et al., 2010). The DeNovoCheck tool is part of the custom-made annotation and was used to align variants called in each member of the patient-parent trios, providing an indication whether variants were inherited or
Subsequently, variants in genes included in the
In this study, a research-based re-analysis was performed on 123 patient-parent trio WES datasets to assess the presence of candidate DNVs. For this, a standardised variant filtering strategy was scripted using R Studio version 3.6.2 (Figure 1—source code 1). Variants were filtered to retain rare (≤0.1% allele frequency in our in-house database and the population databases from Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC), Genome Aggregation Database (GnomAD) genomes and dbSNP as well as ≤0.5% in the Genome of the Netherlands (GoNL) database), coding, non-synonymous, possible DNVs, as annotated by the DeNovoCheck tool (Figure 1; Lelieveld et al., 2016; de Ligt et al., 2012; Karczewski et al., 2020; Sherry et al., 1999; Lek et al., 2016; Boomsma et al., 2014). Variants with ≤10 variation reads, ≤20% variant allele fraction or low coverage DNVs (de Ligt et al., 2012) were excluded. Moreover, synonymous SNVs and small indels were removed from the analysis. DNVs excluded by this filtering strategy were investigated for potential pathogenicity in known IEI genes. The remaining candidate DNVs are listed in Figure 1—source data 2. These DNVs were prioritised and systematically evaluated using variant and gene level metrics, encompassing database allele frequencies (including DNV counts in other datasets via denovo-db), nucleotide conservation, pathogenicity prediction scores, functional information and possible involvement in the immune system based on mouse knockout models, pathway-based annotation (i.e. Gene Ontology terms), and literature studies (Karczewski et al., 2020; Wiel et al., 2019; Stephenson et al., 2019; Turner et al., 2017). Prioritised candidate DNVs were visually inspected using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV) and/or Alamut Visual Software version 2.13 (SOPHiA GENETICS, Saint Sulpice, Switzerland) to investigate biases that would give rise to false-positive variant calls. In addition, splice site DNVs were analysed using the SpliceAI prediction score (Jaganathan et al., 2019) and the Alamut Visual Software, which has incorporated splicing prediction tools such as SpliceSiteFinder-like, MaxEntScan, NNSPLICE, GeneSplicer and ESE tools.
FBXW11 functional validation experiments
Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)-B cell lines
Venous blood was drawn from patient 53 and collected in lithium heparin tubes. Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-transformed B cell lines were created following established procedures (Neitzel, 1986). EBV-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines (EBV-LCLs) from the patient and a healthy control were grown at 37 °C and 7.5% CO2 in RPMI 1640 medium (Dutch Modification, Gibco; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc, Waltham, MA, United States) containing 15% foetal calf serum (FCS; Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, United States), 1% 10,000 U/μl penicillin and 10,000 μg/μl streptomycin (Sigma-Aldrich), and 2% HEPES (Sigma-Aldrich). The EBV-LCLs were cultured at a concentration of 10×106 in 150 cm2 culture flasks (Corning, Corning, NY, United States) and treated with or without cycloheximide at 0.1% (20mL/20 mL medium; Sigma-Aldrich) for four hours. Cell pellets were then spun down, washed with PBS, snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80 °C.
RNA splicing effect
RNA was isolated from the EBV-B cell pellets using the RNeasy Mini isolation kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequently, cDNA was synthesised from RNA with the iScript cDNA Synthesis Kit (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, United States). A primer set was designed (Primer3web, version 4.1.0) to span exon 11–13 of
Venous blood was drawn and collected in EDTA tubes. Immune cell isolation was conducted as described elsewhere (Oosting et al., 2016). In brief, PBMCs were obtained from blood by differential density centrifugation, diluted 1:1 in pyrogen-free saline over Cytiva Ficoll-Paque Plus (Sigma-Aldrich). Cells were washed twice in saline and suspended in cell culture medium (Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) 1640, Gibco) supplemented with gentamicin, 50 mg/mL; L-glutamine, 2 mM; and pyruvate, 1 mM.
For flow cytometry experiments, PBMCs were cultured in U-bottom plates at a final concentration of 1×106 cells in 200 µL per well containing culture medium supplemented with 5% FCS (Sigma-Aldrich) at 37 °C and 5% carbon dioxide. Subsequently, cells were stimulated with phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA, 12.5 ng/mL, Sigma-Aldrich) and ionomycin (500 ng/mL, Sigma-Aldrich) in duplicate for 30 min.
Flow cytometry
PBMC suspensions were transferred to a V-bottom plate while pooling the duplicates. Following centrifugation for 2.5 min, cell surface markers were stained in the dark for 30 min at 4 °C with a monoclonal antibody mix containing anti-CD3-ECD (1:25; Beckman Coulter, Brea, CA, United States), anti-CD4-BV510 (1:50; BD Bioscience, Franklin Lakes, NJ, United States), anti-CD8-APC Alexa Fluor 700 (1:400; Beckman Coulter), and anti-CD14-FITC (1:50; Dako; Agilent Technologies). Subsequently, cells were washed twice with flow cytometry buffer (FCM buffer, 0.2% BSA in PBS) and fixed (BD Biosciences Cytofix, 554655) for 10 min at 37 °C. Next, cells were washed and permeabilised with perm buffer IV (1:10 diluted with PBS, BD Biosciences Phosflow, 560746) for 20 min on ice in the dark. Cells were then stained intracellularly with anti-NF-κB p65 (pS529)-PE antibody (1:50; eBioscience; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc, Waltham, MA, United States) for 20 min at 4 °C. After washing the cells twice in FCM-buffer, the suspensions were measured on a Beckman Coulter Navios EX Flow Cytometer using Navios System Software. Cell immunophenotypes were analysed using Kaluza Analysis Software version 2.1 (Beckman Coulter). The mean fluorescent intensities (MFIs) were calculated using the median pNF-κB p65 expression levels within the gated immune cell populations of interest.
Cytokine measurements
Levels of cytokines IL-1β, IL-6 and TNFα were determined in supernatants of stimulated PBMC cultures according to the instructions of the manufacturer (Duoset ELISA; R&D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, United States).
Results
Cohort characteristics
This retrospective cohort study systematically re-analysed patient-parent trio whole exome sequencing (WES) data of 123 patients with suspected, sporadic inborn errors of immunity (IEI) with the aim to identify candidate
Table 1.
Patient cohort characteristics.
Characteristic | Total N=123 |
---|---|
Demographics | |
Age*, median (IQR) y | 9 (2-17) |
<18 y, % | 67.4 |
>18 y, % | 33.6 |
Sex ratio, M:F | 50.4:49.6 |
Distribution of clinical phenotypes † | |
Severe combined immunodeficiency, n (%) | 9 (7.3) |
Suspected SCID (low TRECs), n | 5 |
Other, n | 4 |
Combined immunodeficiency, n (%) | 22 (17.9) |
Syndromal, n | 20 |
Non-syndromal, n | 2 |
Primary antibody deficiency, n (%) | 14 (11.4) |
CVID, n | 14 |
Agammaglobulinemia, n | 0 |
Other, n | 0 |
Immune dysregulation, n (%) | 20 (16.3) |
HLH/EBV, n | 5 |
Autoimmunity, n | 15 |
Autoinflammatory syndrome, n (%) | 22 (17.9) |
Periodic fever syndrome, n | 19 |
Interferonopathy, n | 0 |
Other, n | 3 |
Phagocyte defect, n (%) | 5 (4.1) |
Functional defect, n | 1 |
Neutropenia/other, n | 4 |
Innate/intrinsic immune defect, n (%) | 16 (13.0) |
Bacterial/parasitic, n | 2 |
MSMD/Viral, n | 7 |
Other, n | 7 |
Complement deficiencies, n (%) | 0 (0.0) |
Bone marrow failure, n (%) | 10 (8.1) |
Phenocopies of PIDs, n (%) | 0 (0.0) |
Unclassified, n (%) | 5 (4.1) |
Abbreviations: IQR = interquartile range; SCID = severe combined immunodeficiency; TREC = T cell receptor excision circle; CVID = common variable immunodeficiency; HLH = haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; EBV = Epstein-Barr virus; MSMD = Mendelian susceptibility to mycobacterial disease; PID = primary immunodeficiency.
*
The age at the time of genetic testing is indicated, since the age of onset has not been documented for all cases.
†
Categorization of phenotypes is based on the IUIS classification of 2019 (14).
Reported genetic variants after diagnostic whole exome sequencing
Potential disease-causing SNVs and/or copy number variants (CNVs) were reported in 36 index patients after diagnostic WES (Table 2). Twenty-four patients were carriers of recessive disease alleles, previously characterised risk factors, variants of uncertain significance (VUS) or (likely) pathogenic variants affecting established disease genes other than those associated with IEI (Table 2). Of note, three of these patients carried
Table 2.
Genetic findings after routine diagnostic panel analysis.
Genetic variants reported after routine diagnostic whole exome sequencing analysis of the 123 patients included in this cohort of inborn errors of immunity.
Total cases in which a genetic variant was reported, n (%) | 36 (29.3) | Patient nr. |
---|---|---|
(Likely) pathogenic mutation, n (%) | 18 (14.6) | |
Within IEI gene panel, n (%) | 12 (9.8) | All patients listed in Table 3 |
Beyond IEI gene panel, n (%) | 6 (4.9) | 1, 3, 40, 69, 85, 103 (Table 1—source data 1) |
Other variants, n (%) | 19 (15.4) | Table 1—source data 1 |
Risk factor, n (%) | 6 (4.9) | 21, 44, 55, 56, 68, 112 |
Carriership recessive allele, n (%) | 7 (5.7) | 3, 7, 16, 23, 32, 44, 76 |
Variant of unknown significance, n (%) | 9 (7.3) | 6, 21, 23, 45, 54, 80, 100, 101, 115 |
In 12 patients, (likely) pathogenic SNVs were identified in known IEI genes that (partially) explain the patient’s immunological phenotype (Table 2, details shown in Table 3). While most variants were inherited, one patient with Muckle-Wells syndrome (patient 59) carried a
Table 3.
Patients with previously reported single nucleotide variants, small insertion-deletions, or copy number variants that may (partially) explain the patient’s immunological phenotype.
Listed variants were identified prior to the research-based systematic re-analysis of the current study following diagnostic gene panel analysis for inborn errors of immunity.
Patient nr. | Sex | Age range at sampling | Phenotype (IUIS classification) | Variant | Mutational mechanism | ACMG classification | ClinVar accession | Comments |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10 | F | 0–5 | Immune dysregulation, HLH/EBV | AP3B1 Chr5(GRCh37):g.77563371del NM_003664.4:c.177del p.(Lys59fs) | AR (ch) LoF | Pathogenic | VCV000224763 | Hermansky-Pudlak syndrome 2 (OMIM #608233) |
AP3B1 Chr5(GRCh37):g.77423980_77423983del NM_003664.4:c.1839_1842del p.(Asp613fs) | Pathogenic | VCV000224764 | ||||||
12 | F | 11–15 | CID, syndromal | FAS Chr10(GRCh37):g.90774167_90774186dup NM_000043.6:c.968_987dup p.(Glu330fs) | AD (htz) LoF | Pathogenic | VCV000016509 | Autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome, type IA (OMIM #601859) |
seq[GRCh37] del(16)(p11.2p11.2) NC_000016.9:g.(29469093_29624260)_(30199846_30208282)del | AD (htz) LoF | Pathogenic | - | 16 p11.2 deletion syndrome (OMIM #611913) | ||||
26 | F | 0–5 | Bone marrow failure | DHFR Chr5(GRCh37):g.79950248C>T NM_000791.3:c.61G>A p.(Gly21Arg) | AR (hmz) LoF | Likely pathogenic | - | Megaloblastic anaemia due to dihydrofolate reductase deficiency (OMIM #613839) |
59 | M | 6–10 | Autoinflammatory disorder | NLRP3 Chr1(GRCh37):g.247587794C>T NM_001079821.2:c.1049C>T p.(Thr350Met) | AD (htz) LoF | Pathogenic | - | Muckle-Wells syndrome (OMIM #191900) |
61 | M | 0–5 | CID, syndromal | MKL1 Chr22(GRCh37):g.40815086dup NM_020831.4:c.1356dup p.(Val453Argfs) | AR (hmz) LoF | Likely pathogenic | - | Immunodeficiency 66 (OMIM #618847) |
77 | F | 0–5 | CID, syndromal | ALOXE3 Chr17(GRCh37):g.8006708G>A NM_021628.2:c.1889C>T p.(Pro630Leu) | AR (hmz) LoF | Pathogenic | - | Congenital ichthyosis 3 (OMIM #606545) |
91 | F | 0–5 | Suspected SCID (low TRECs) | FOXN1 Chr17(GRCh37):g.26857765A>G NM_003593.2:c.831–2A>G p.? | AD (htz) LoF | Likely pathogenic | - | T-cell lymphopenia, infantile, with or without nail dystrophy (OMIM #618806) |
102 | F | 11–15 | Immune dysregulation, autoimmunity and others | CD55 Chr1(GRCh37):g.207497984dup NM_001300902.1:c.367dup p.(Thr123fs) | AR (hmz) LoF | Pathogenic | - | Complement hyperactivation, angiopathic thrombosis, and protein-losing enteropathy (OMIM #226300) |
PET117 Chr20(GRCh37):g.18122927C>T NM_001164811.1:c.172C>T p.(Gln58*) | AR (hmz) LoF | Likely pathogenic | VCV000981504 | Mitochondrial complex IV deficiency, nuclear type 19 (OMIM #619063) | ||||
105 | M | 31–35 | Defects in intrinsic and innate immunity, MSMD and viral infection | TLR7 ChrX(GRCh37):g.12905756_12905759del NM_016562.3:c.2129_2132del p.(Gln710fs) | XLR (hemi) LoF | Pathogenic | VCV000977232 | Immunodeficiency 74, COVID19-related (OMIM #301051) |
114 | M | 6–10 | Immune dysregulation, autoimmunity and others | LRBA Chr4(GRCh37):g.151835415del NM_006726.4:c.1093del p.(Tyr365fs) | AR (hmz) LoF | Pathogenic | - | Common variable immunodeficiency 8 (OMIM #614700) |
120 | M | 11–15 | Congenital defect of phagocyte, functional defects | NCF1 Chr7(GRCh37):g.74191615_74191616del NM_000265.5:c.75_76del p.(Tyr26fs) | AR (hmz) LoF | Pathogenic | VCV000002249 | Chronic granulomatous disease 1 (OMIM #233700) |
122 | M | 0–5 | Suspected SCID (low TRECs) | FOXN1 Chr17(GRCh37):g.26851540del NM_003593.2.1:c.143del p.(Cys48fs) | AD (htz) LoF | Pathogenic | - | T-cell lymphopenia, infantile, with or without nail dystrophy (OMIM #618806) |
Abbreviations: IUIS = International Union of Immunological societies; ACMG = American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics; HLH = haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis; EBV = Epstein-Barr virus; OMIM = Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man; (S)CID = (severe) combined immunodeficiency; TREC = T cell receptor excision circle; MSMD = Mendelian susceptibility to mycobacterial disease; AR = autosomal recessive; AD = autosomal dominant; XLR = X-linked recessive; ch = compound heterozygous; htz = heterozygous; hmz = homozygous; hemi = hemizygous; LoF = loss-of-function; SNV = single nucleotide variant.
Table 4.
Identification of 13 heterozygous, rare and non-synonymous candidate
The 124 non-synonymous candidate
Patient nr. | Sex | Age range at sampling | Phenotype (IUIS classification) | GnomAD AF in % | in-house AF in % | PhyloP | CADD | VarMap | MetaDome | Coding DNV in denovo-db (protein effect) | LOEUF | Function | Literature | Comments | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Missense SNVs | |||||||||||||||
1 | M | 11–15 | SCID | PSMB10 Chr16(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 5 | 32 | Likely deleterious | Neutral | - | 1.37 | Immuno- and thymoproteasome subunit | Homozygous | Revertant somatic mosaicism (VAF: 39.7%). Additional inherited SNV and partial somatic UPD16 (Table 1—source data 1). |
9 | M | 6–10 | Predominantly antibody deficiency, hypogamma-globulinemia | RPL27A Chr11(GRCh37): | 0.0032 | 0.0041 | 7.4 | 27.4 | Likely deleterious | Intolerant | - | 0.39 | Ribosomal subunit | Ribosomopathies may include immunological defects (Khan et al., 2011). | |
27 | M | 11–15 | Autoinflammatory disorder | TAOK2 Chr16(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 4.8 | 22.5 | Possibly deleterious | Slightly intolerant | 6 (4 mis) | 0.24 | Serine/threonine-protein kinase (p38 MAPK pathway) | Homozygous | |
28 | F | 16–20 | Predominantly antibody deficiency, hypogamma-globulinemia | KCTD9 Chr8(GRCh37): | 0 | 0.0082 | 5.8 | 32 | Likely deleterious | Intolerant | - | 0.52 | Substrate-specific adapter | Involved in NK cell activation (Chen et al., 2013). | |
52 | M | 11–15 | Predominantly antibody deficiency, hypogamma-globulinemia | SCRIB Chr8(GRCh37): | 0.0032 | 0 | 4.2 | 29.9 | Possibly deleterious | Intolerant | 5 (4 mis) | 0.31 | Scaffold protein | Involved in uropod and immunological synapse formation, and ROS production by antigen-presenting cells (Barreda et al., 2020). | |
58 | F | 21–25 | Unclassified | CTCF Chr16(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 9.7 | 24.7 | Possibly deleterious | Highly intolerant | 12 (11 mis) | 0.15 | Transcriptional insulator | Published (Konrad et al., 2019). | |
75 | F | 6–10 | Bone marrow failure | FUBP1 Chr1(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 2.6 | 24.8 | Possibly deleterious | Intolerant | 1 (0 mis) | 0.12 | Transcriptional regulator that binds FUSE upstream of the c-myc promoter | Essential for long-term repopulating hematopoietic stem cell renewal (Rabenhorst et al., 2015). | |
118 | F | 0–5 | Immune dysregulation, autoimmunity and others | RUNX3 Chr1(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 2.4 | 18 | Possibly deleterious | Slightly tolerant | 1 (1 mis) | 0.42 | Transcriptional regulator | RUNX3 regulates CD8+T cell thymocyte development, maturation of cytotoxic CD8+T cells and the function of innate lymphoid cells 3 via stimulation of RORγt (Ebihara et al., 2015). | |
Frameshift SNVs | |||||||||||||||
49 | M | 26–30 | Predominantly antibody deficiency, hypogamma-globulinemia | DDX1 Chr2(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 4 (0 fs) | 0.28 | RNA helicase | Part of a dsRNA sensor that activates the NF-κB pathway and type I interferon responses (Zhang et al., 2011). | |
78 | F | 6–10 | CID, syndromal | KMT2C Chr7(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | - | - | - | - | 19 (4 fs) | 0.12 | Histone methyltransferase | ||
Small in-frame indel | |||||||||||||||
108 | M | 21–25 | Bone marrow failure | NSD2 Chr4(GRCh37): | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.12 | Histone methyltransferase | Postzygotic mosaicism (VAF 29%). | ||
Patient nr. | Sex | Age range at sampling | Phenotype (IUIS classification) |
| GnomAD AF in % | in-house AF in % | PhyloP | CADD | SpliceAI Acceptor Gain | SpliceAI Acceptor Loss | Coding DNV in denovo-db (protein effect) | LOEUF | Function | Literature | Comments |
Splice site SNVs | |||||||||||||||
53 | F | 11–15 | Autoinflammatory disorder | FBXW11 Chr5(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 7.9 | 34 | 0.0134 | 0.9862 | 2 (0 ss) | 0.31 | Component of SCF (SKP1-CUL1-F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase complex | Involved in the regulation of NF-κB signalling (Wang et al., 2018). | |
119 | F | 11–15 | Autoinflammatory disorder | RELA Chr11(GRCh37): | 0 | 0 | 3.5 | 34 | 0.7968 | 0.9991 | - | 0.18 | Transcription factor p65 (NF-κB subunit) | Heterozygous |
Abbreviations: IUIS = International Union of Immunological Societies; GnomAD = Genome Aggregation Database; AF = allele frequency; CADD = Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion; DNV =
Overall, routine diagnostic WES analysis provided a likely molecular diagnosis for (part) of the phenotype in 18 patients (14.6%) based on established mutational mechanisms and disease associations (Table 2).
Rare, non-synonymous
Next, re-analysis was performed on WES data of all 123 sporadic IEI cases and their parents to systematically identify and interpret DNVs in novel IEI genes. Automated DNV filtering retained a total of 172 candidate DNVs that were rare (148 DNVs were absent from GnomAD genomes) and located in either exonic or splice site regions (the complete list can be found in Figure 1—source data 2). The total number of candidate DNVs among patients ranged between zero and six (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Moreover, the average number of candidate DNVs was comparable to recent literature (Figure 1—source data 3). Of these candidate DNVs, 124 were non-synonymous and therefore expected to exert an effect on protein function (Figure 1—source data 2). Two pairs of patients carried candidate DNVs in the same gene,
Subsequently, all non-synonymous candidate DNVs were systematically evaluated based on information on variant and gene level metrics, leading to the selection of 14 candidate DNVs potentially causing IEI (Tables 3 and 4), including the above-mentioned variant in the known IEI gene
A patient with an autoinflammatory phenotype characterised by mucocutaneous ulceration of mouth and genital area carried a DNV in
In addition, a private
Another frameshift DNV in
Lastly, a DNV affecting
The other candidate DNVs will not be described in detail here, as there is insufficient evidence to suggest pathogenicity or a genotype-phenotype relationship. Future discovery of cases with DNVs in the presented genes and overlapping clinical phenotypes could encourage further in-depth research into the possible mutational mechanisms.
Functional validation of
In addition to systematic DNV analysis, we have selected the candidate DNV in
Figure 2.
NF-κB signalling and production of innate cytokines upon
Panel A shows the median fluorescence intensity expression levels of pNF-κB p65 (S529) in peripheral blood CD14 +monocytes and CD8 +T cells from a healthy control (blue) and patient 53 (red), in the absence (baseline) or presence of phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate and ionomycin stimulation, with the absolute values indicated in the lower right corner. Panels B, C, and D display the production of IL-1β, IL-6, and TNFα, respectively, after
Figure 2—figure supplement 1.
RNA splicing effect of the FBXW11
Panel A shows the agarose gel on cDNA PCR products of patient and control Epstein–Barr virus (EBV)-transformed lymphoblastoid cell lines (EBV-LCLs) treated with or without cycloheximide (CHX). Three distinct bands were identified and are indicated by arrows next to a 100bp ladder (L). Both the wildtype allele of the patient and the control show a smear, possibly indicating the presence of multiple FBXW11 isoforms. Panel B shows traces of the three bands from the agarose gel that were cut out and sent for Sanger sequencing. As the splice site variant in the patient was expected to lead to skipping of exon 12, the boundaries between exons 11, 12 and 13 were shown. The second band confirms skipping of exon 12 that results in a shorter transcript of the mutated
Discussion
We investigated the potential benefit of trio-based whole exome sequencing (WES) over routine single WES analysis in a retrospective cohort of 123 patients with suspected, sporadic inborn errors of immunity (IEI). Systematic analysis of
We have performed a systematic DNV analysis in patients with a suspected, sporadic IEI. On average, these patients carried 1.4 DNVs in coding regions, a rate comparable to other, larger studies, indicating that DNV enrichment or depletion in IEI patients is unlikely (Kaplanis et al., 2020). Based on gene and variant level information, 14 DNVs (11.4%) were considered potential disease-causing candidates. Six of the candidate DNVs (4.9%) were considered likely or possibly pathogenic variants, while the consequence of the other eight DNVs (6.5%) was uncertain.
Two DNVs were in IEI genes (
Moreover, DNVs in the potentially novel IEI genes
In addition, a
Another candidate DNV in a potentially novel IEI gene was identified in the highly conserved
To our knowledge, two other cohort studies have systematically performed trio-based sequencing in IEI patients as part of their study design, although patients were not pre-selected based on sporadic phenotypes (Stray-Pedersen et al., 2017; Simon et al., 2020). Stray-Pedersen
Multiple studies have highlighted the potential benefits of routine trio-based sequencing in IEI patients over single WES (Meyts et al., 2016; Arts et al., 2019; Vorsteveld et al., 2021; Chinn et al., 2020). These advantages apply mostly to patients with sporadic, severe phenotypes in particular, as has been shown for other rare diseases such as neurodevelopmental disorders (Kaplanis et al., 2020). Trio-based sequencing constitutes an unbiased way to identify rare, coding DNVs that are by definition strong candidate variants. It could therefore improve candidate variant prioritisation both during
Based on the results of this study as well as evidence from other studies including those from other rare disease fields, we suggest that trio-based sequencing should be part of the routine evaluation of patients with a sporadic IEI phenotype (Box 1). An exome-wide analysis should be conducted to identify potentially novel disease genes in cases with a negative diagnostic WES result in whom a strong clinical suspicion for an underlying monogenic cause remains. Thus far, the relative proportion of DNVs among IEI patients with a genetic diagnosis, estimated to be around 6–14%, seems modest compared to other rare disease fields (i.e. >80% in neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs)) (Brunet et al., 2021). There are several explanations for this difference that suggest that the true contribution of DNVs is higher than currently appreciated. Most importantly, much more experience has been gained with DNV assessment in the field of NDDs. Despite a steep increase in the total diagnostic rate (Vissers et al., 2010; de Ligt et al., 2012; Deciphering Developmental Disorders Study, 2017) and the identification of 285 developmental disorder (DD)-associated DNVs, modelling suggests that more than 1000 DD-associated genes still remain to be discovered (Kaplanis et al., 2020). As more trio-based sequencing data will be generated from suspected IEI patients, the field should undertake larger-scale analyses that leverage existing statistical models from the field of NDDs/DDs, including models for gene/exon level enrichment and the identification of gain-of-function nucleotide clusters (Kaplanis et al., 2020). Moreover, there is still a bias towards AR disease genes in the IEI field, while this imbalance is shifting with the discovery of an increasing number of autosomal dominant (AD) disease genes (van der Made et al., 2020). Trio-based sequencing could accelerate the discovery of mutations in novel AD IEI genes.
Box 1.
Proposed indications for trio-based sequencing in patients with inborn errors of immunity.
Clinical features with a high
Sporadic and ultra-rare
Early-onset (infancy/childhood)
Severe symptoms, often involving organs other than the immune system
Clinical features with a high
Late-onset (adolescence/adulthood)
Severe symptoms, often involving signs of autoinflammation, immune dysregulation and/or bone marrow abnormalities
Evidence for immune cell- or bone marrow lineage-specific dysfunction (i.e. myeloid cells [Beck et al., 2020], lymphoid cells [Wolach et al., 2005])
Inborn errors of immunity constitute a large group of heterogeneous disorders with differences in the expected contribution of DNVs. The
This explorative study has a number of limitations. First, the sample size precludes a reliable estimation of the prevalence of DNVs among patients with sporadic IEIs. Furthermore, the strict diagnostic rate of both inherited variants and (likely) pathogenic DNVs in our cohort is limited compared to other studies. It has been previously reported that the diagnostic yield of WES for IEI patients varies widely from 10 to 79% (Vorsteveld et al., 2021). This study reports (likely) pathogenic variants in 22 cases (17.9%), of which 10 (8.1%) received a definitive molecular diagnosis for their immunological phenotype. In addition to inherent technical shortcomings of WES, including uneven coverage of coding regions and GC bias and also the inability to explore the non-coding space (Meyts et al., 2016), the most likely explanation for a relatively low diagnostic yield in our study is the patient selection and the primary focus on DNVs, which constitute only a fraction of disease-causing variants. We excluded patients with suspected inherited disease but chose not to apply any other selection criteria in order to study a representative cross-section of suspected IEI patients in our centre in whom WES was performed. As a result, patients were included even if the
In conclusion, we applied trio-based WES in a retrospective cohort of 123 patients with suspected, sporadic IEI, leading to the identification of 14 DNVs with a possible or likely chance of pathogenicity. Amongst the candidate DNVs in potentially novel IEI genes, additional functional evidence was provided in support of a pathogenic role for the DNV in
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2022, Hebert et al. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Background:
Methods:
This study explored the potential added value of systematic assessment of DNVs in a retrospective cohort of 123 patients with a suspected sporadic IEI that underwent patient-parent trio-based WES.
Results:
A (likely) molecular diagnosis for (part) of the immunological phenotype was achieved in 12 patients with the diagnostic
Conclusions:
Our findings in this retrospective cohort study advocate the implementation of trio-based sequencing in routine diagnostics of patients with sporadic IEI. Furthermore, we provide functional evidence supporting a causal role for
Funding:
This research was supported by grants from the European Union, ZonMW and the Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer