Hubbry Logo
ExomeExomeMain
Open search
Exome
Community hub
Exome
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Exome
Exome
Exome
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The exome is composed of all of the exons within the genome, the sequences which, when transcribed, remain within the mature RNA after introns are removed by RNA splicing. This includes untranslated regions of messenger RNA (mRNA), and coding regions. Exome sequencing has proven to be an efficient method of determining the genetic basis of more than two dozen Mendelian or single gene disorders.[1]

Statistics

[edit]
Distinction between genome, exome, and transcriptome. The exome consists of all of the exons within the genome. In contrast, the trascriptome varies between cell types (e.g. neurons vs cardiac cells), only involving a portion of the exons that are actually transcribed into mRNA.

The human exome consists of roughly 233,785 exons, about 80% of which are less than 200 base pairs in length, constituting a total of about 1.1% of the total genome, or about 30 megabases of DNA.[2][3][4] Though composing a very small fraction of the genome, mutations in the exome are thought to harbor 85% of mutations that have a large effect on disease.[5]

Definition

[edit]
See also: List of human protein-coding genes 1, List of human protein-coding genes 2, List of human protein-coding genes 3, and List of human protein-coding genes 4

It is important to note that the exome is distinct from the transcriptome, which is all of the transcribed RNA within a cell type. While the exome is constant from cell-type to cell-type, the transcriptome changes based on the structure and function of the cells. As a result, the entirety of the exome is not translated into protein in every cell. Different cell types only transcribe portions of the exome, and only the coding regions of the exons are eventually translated into proteins.

Next-generation sequencing

[edit]

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for the rapid sequencing of large amounts of DNA, significantly advancing the study of genetics, and replacing older methods such as Sanger sequencing. This technology is starting to become more common in healthcare and research not only because it is a reliable method of determining genetic variations, but also because it is cost effective and allows researchers to sequence entire genomes in anywhere between days to weeks. This compares to former methods which may have taken months. Next-gen sequencing includes both whole-exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing.[6]

Whole-exome sequencing

[edit]

Sequencing an individual's exome instead of their entire genome has been proposed to be a more cost-effective and efficient way to diagnose rare genetic disorders.[7][8] It has also been found to be more effective than other methods such as karyotyping and microarrays.[9] This distinction is largely due to the fact that phenotypes of genetic disorders are a result of mutated exons. In addition, since the exome only comprises 1.5% of the total genome, this process is more cost efficient and fast as it involves sequencing around 40 million bases rather than the 3 billion base pairs that make up the genome.[10]

Whole-genome sequencing

[edit]

On the other hand, whole genome sequencing has been found to capture a more comprehensive view of variants in the DNA compared to whole-exome sequencing. Especially for single nucleotide variants, whole genome sequencing is more powerful and more sensitive than whole-exome sequencing in detecting potentially disease-causing mutations within the exome.[11] One must also keep in mind that non-coding regions can be involved in the regulation of the exons that make up the exome, and so whole-exome sequencing may not be complete in showing all the sequences at play in forming the exome.

Ethical considerations

[edit]

With either form of sequencing, whole-exome sequencing or whole genome sequencing, some have argued that such practices should be done under the consideration of medical ethics. While physicians strive to preserve patient autonomy, sequencing deliberately asks laboratories to look at genetic variants that may be completely unrelated to the patient's condition at hand and have the potential of revealing findings that were not intentionally sought. In addition, such testing have been suggested to have imply forms of discrimination against particular groups for having certain genes, creating the potential for stigmas or negative attitudes towards that group as a result.[12]

Diseases and diagnoses

[edit]

Rare mutations that affect the function of essential proteins constitute the majority of Mendelian diseases. In addition, the overwhelming majority of disease-causing mutations in Mendelian loci can be found within the coding region.[5] With the goal of finding methods to best detect harmful mutations and successfully diagnose patients, researchers are looking to the exome for clues to aid in this process.

Whole-exome sequencing is a recent technology that has led to the discovery of various genetic disorders and increased the rate of diagnoses of patients with rare genetic disorders. Overall, whole-exome sequencing has allowed healthcare providers to diagnose 30–50% of patients who were thought to have rare Mendelian disorders.[citation needed] It has been suggested that whole-exome sequencing in clinical settings has many unexplored advantages. Not only can the exome increase our understanding of genetic patterns, but under clinical settings, it has the potential to the change in management of patients with rare and previously unknown disorders, allowing physicians to develop more targeted and personalized interventions.[13]

For example, Bartter Syndrome, also known as salt-wasting nephropathy, is a hereditary disease of the kidney characterized by hypotension (low blood pressure), hypokalemia (low potassium), and alkalosis (high blood pH) leading to muscle fatigue and varying levels of fatality.[14] It is an example of a rare disease, affecting fewer than one per million people, whose patients have been positively impacted by whole-exome sequencing. Thanks to this method, patients who formerly did not exhibit the classical mutations associated with Bartter Syndrome were formally diagnosed with it after the discovery that the disease has mutations outside of the loci of interest.[5] They were thus able to gain more targeted and productive treatment for the disease.

Much of the focus of exome sequencing in the context of disease diagnosis has been on protein coding "loss of function" alleles. Research has shown, however, that future advances that allow the study of non-coding regions, within and without the exome, may lead to additional abilities in the diagnoses of rare Mendelian disorders.[15] The exome is the part of the genome composed of exons, the sequences which, when transcribed, remain within the mature RNA after introns are removed by RNA splicing and contribute to the final protein product encoded by that gene. It consists of all DNA that is transcribed into mature RNA in cells of any type, as distinct from the transcriptome, which is the RNA that has been transcribed only in a specific cell population. The exome of the human genome consists of roughly 180,000 exons constituting about 1% of the total genome, or about 30 megabases of DNA.[16] Though composing a very small fraction of the genome, mutations in the exome are thought to harbor 85% of mutations that have a large effect on disease.[17][18] Exome sequencing has proved to be an efficient strategy to determine the genetic basis of more than two dozen Mendelian or single gene disorders.[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Exome

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The exome consists of the collective exons in a , which are the segments of DNA transcribed into mRNA and predominantly translated into proteins, thereby encoding the functional . In the , the exome spans approximately 1-2% of the total DNA sequence, containing roughly 180,000 exons distributed across about 20,000 protein-coding genes. Exome selectively captures and analyzes these coding regions using targeted hybridization or amplification methods, offering a cost-effective alternative to whole-genome sequencing by focusing on areas enriched for disease-causing variants. This approach has driven major advances in identifying causal mutations for rare genetic disorders, with diagnostic yields ranging from 25-58% in clinical settings for undiagnosed cases, particularly Mendelian diseases. Key achievements include the rapid discovery of novel disease genes since the early , accelerating precision medicine applications in , , and . However, limitations persist, as exome methods may underperform in capturing certain structural variants or non-coding regulatory sequences implicated in complex traits, necessitating integration with broader genomic assays for comprehensive causal inference.

Definition and Biological Foundations

Core Definition

The exome comprises the aggregate of all exons within a genome, representing the protein-coding regions of genes that are transcribed into messenger RNA (mRNA) and subsequently translated into proteins. Exons are the segments of DNA that remain after intronic sequences are spliced out during RNA processing, forming the mature mRNA template for protein synthesis. This definition emphasizes the exome's role as the functional subset of the genome directly responsible for encoding amino acid sequences in polypeptides, excluding non-coding elements such as introns, promoters, enhancers, and intergenic regions. In the human genome, the exome encompasses approximately 180,000 exons across roughly 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes, spanning about 30 million base pairs and constituting 1-2% of the total 3 billion base pair genome. More precisely, it accounts for around 1.5% of genomic DNA, yet this compact region harbors the majority—over 85%—of known disease-associated variants, underscoring its disproportionate biomedical significance despite its small size relative to non-coding DNA. Biologically, the exome's primary function lies in determining the proteome's diversity through sequence variations that alter , function, or expression levels, thereby influencing phenotypic traits and susceptibility to disorders. within exonic sequences, such as single variants or insertions/deletions, can disrupt coding frames or substitutions, leading to loss-of-function or gain-of-function effects in cellular processes. While the exome does not capture regulatory or structural genomic elements, its focus on coding exons provides a targeted lens for understanding Mendelian and complex genetic diseases rooted in protein dysfunction.

Relationship to Genome Structure

The exome consists of all exons across the protein-coding in a , representing the segments that are retained in mature mRNA after splicing and primarily encode sequences for proteins. These exons are embedded within the broader genomic architecture as discontinuous units, interspersed by introns—non-coding sequences that are transcribed but excised during RNA processing. This intron-exon organization, first elucidated in the late 1970s, enables , whereby different exon combinations from a single gene can produce multiple protein isoforms, thereby expanding functional diversity from a limited number of genes. In the , which spans approximately 3.2 billion base pairs, the exome constitutes roughly 1-1.5% of the total sequence, equivalent to about 30-45 million base pairs. This includes around 180,000 to 181,000 exons distributed across approximately 20,000 protein-coding genes, with internal exons (excluding untranslated regions) forming the core coding portions. The vast majority of the genome—over 98%—comprises non-exonic elements, including introns (which can exceed exons in length by orders of magnitude within individual genes), regulatory sequences, repetitive elements, and intergenic regions, underscoring the exome's compact role within a predominantly non-coding . This structural relationship highlights the exome's efficiency in encoding functional proteins amid genomic complexity, where exons often cluster in gene-dense regions but remain fragmented to facilitate evolutionary flexibility, such as exon shuffling or domain swapping. While not all exonic bases are strictly protein-coding (e.g., some contribute to untranslated regions or non-coding RNAs), the exome's focus on these elements prioritizes variants with direct impacts on protein function over the more diffuse effects in non-coding architecture.

Functional Role in Protein Coding

The exome consists of the exonic sequences within protein-coding genes, which collectively span approximately 1-2% of the , or about 30-60 million base pairs across roughly 20,000 genes. These exons serve as the primary template for protein synthesis, where their sequences are transcribed into pre-messenger RNA (pre-mRNA) transcripts that include both exons and intervening introns. During RNA processing, introns are precisely excised through splicing, and the exons are ligated to form mature mRNA, preserving the sequential order of exonic coding regions. The coding portions of these exons—known as coding DNA sequences (CDS)—are then translated by ribosomes in the , where each triplet codon specifies one of 20 or a stop signal, directly dictating the primary sequence of the resulting polypeptide chain. This sequence determines higher-order protein structures, including alpha helices, beta sheets, and domains essential for enzymatic , structural integrity, signaling, and molecular interactions. Not all exonic sequences code for proteins; exons also encompass untranslated regions (UTRs) at the 5' and 3' ends, which modulate mRNA stability, localization, and translation efficiency but do not contribute to the chain. Nonetheless, the CDS within exons represent the core functional unit for protein coding, as their integrity ensures faithful replication of genetic information into functional diversity, underpinning cellular processes from metabolism to . Alterations in exonic CDS, such as single changes, can disrupt this fidelity by introducing substitutions or truncations, though many such variants exert neutral effects due to and protein robustness.

Historical Development

Discovery of Exons and Gene Structure

In the decades preceding , the structure of eukaryotic genes was widely assumed to be colinear with the polypeptide products they encoded, featuring uninterrupted coding sequences from prokaryotic models extended to higher organisms. This view, rooted in earlier genetic studies like those on bacterial operons, lacked evidence for discontinuities in eukaryotic DNA despite hints from mismatched hybridization patterns. The discovery of discontinuous gene structure occurred in 1977 through independent experiments by at and Phillip A. Sharp at the , using adenovirus as a model system. Roberts' group and Sharp's group employed mapping, hybridizing poly(A)-containing viral mRNA to double-stranded genomic DNA under conditions that displace one DNA strand, forming RNA-DNA hybrids visualized via electron microscopy. This revealed distinct hybridized segments interrupted by unpaired DNA loops, indicating that genes comprise non-contiguous coding regions separated by intervening non-coding sequences. Sharp's team published findings in Proceedings of the demonstrating at least one large in the adenovirus hexon , while Roberts' work in Cell identified multiple interruptions in late mRNAs, confirming the mosaic nature of eukaryotic genes. These observations showed that primary transcripts (pre-mRNA) include both coding exons—regions retained in mature mRNA—and introns, which are excised via to ligate exons into functional messages. The split-gene model explained discrepancies in gene size versus mRNA length and laid the foundation for understanding , where variable exon inclusion generates protein diversity from single genes. Roberts and Sharp received the 1993 Nobel Prize in or for these discoveries. The nomenclature "exon" for expressed, spliced segments and "intron" for intervening, removed sequences was proposed by in 1978, formalizing the structural elements in a article. Subsequent studies extended the finding to cellular genes, such as the ovalbumin and immunoglobulin genes in 1978, verifying introns' ubiquity in eukaryotes and their role in post-transcriptional processing. This from continuous to modular gene architecture enabled later concepts like the exome—the collective exonic portions of the genome targeted in sequencing for protein-coding variation analysis.

Emergence of Exome Sequencing

Exome sequencing emerged in the late 2000s as a targeted approach to interrogate protein-coding regions amid the high costs and data volume of whole-genome sequencing enabled by next-generation sequencing platforms. These platforms, commercialized around 2005–2007 by companies like Illumina and 454 Life Sciences, generated millions of short reads in parallel, but early applications strained computational and interpretive resources for , which comprises over 98% of the yet harbors fewer disease-causing variants. Exome sequencing addressed this by employing hybridization-based capture methods—using probes arrayed on beads or chips—to selectively enrich exons, the ~180,000 coding segments totaling approximately 30–60 megabases, prior to sequencing. This strategy leveraged the observation that ~85% of known disease-associated mutations in Mendelian disorders occur in exons, prioritizing causal realism in genetic diagnostics over exhaustive genomic coverage. The first proof-of-principle demonstration of whole came in 2009, when Ng et al. applied massively parallel sequencing to the exomes of four individuals affected by , a rare craniofacial disorder. By capturing and sequencing ~1% of the genome, they identified compound heterozygous mutations in the DHODH gene as the cause, filtering variants against unaffected relatives and population databases to pinpoint pathogenicity—a that confirmed the approach's efficacy for recessive disorders. This study, published in Science, marked the initial use of to resolve an unknown causal gene in a Mendelian condition, building on prior targeted resequencing but scaling it genome-wide via commercial capture kits like those from Agilent or NimbleGen, which achieved ~70–90% enrichment efficiency for targeted regions. Concurrently, similar efforts identified mutations in TTN for familial , underscoring exome sequencing's utility in heterogeneous phenotypes. Rapid adoption followed due to exome sequencing's cost-effectiveness—reducing per-sample expenses to under $1,000 by versus millions for early whole-genome efforts—and its focus on interpretable data, facilitating discoveries in undiagnosed cases. Between 2009 and 2011, applications expanded to de novo mutations in autism and , with studies like those from the Autism Genome Project revealing novel variants in synaptic genes. Methodological refinements, including improved bait designs for splice sites and UTRs, enhanced coverage uniformity, mitigating biases in GC-rich regions that plagued initial arrays. By privileging empirical variant calling over speculative non-coding analysis, catalyzed a toward clinically actionable , though reliant on accurate reference annotations from projects like GENCODE.

Key Milestones in Application

In 2009, researchers led by Sarah B. Ng and Jay Shendure at the conducted the first successful application of whole (WES) to identify a causative gene for a rare Mendelian disorder, sequencing the protein-coding regions in two unrelated individuals with and pinpointing biallelic mutations in the DHODH gene, which encodes an enzyme in pyrimidine biosynthesis. This proof-of-principle study, published in early 2010, achieved approximately 75% coverage of targeted exons at 20-fold depth using array-based capture and massively parallel sequencing on the Illumina platform, highlighting WES's efficiency over whole-genome approaches for variant discovery in coding regions where most disease-causing mutations reside. The finding validated WES as a targeted, cost-effective method for monogenic disease gene identification, reducing sequencing burden from billions to roughly 30 million base pairs. Building on this, 2010 saw WES extended to sporadic neurodevelopmental disorders, with studies employing trio sequencing ( and parents) to detect de novo mutations; for instance, Veltman and colleagues identified disruptive variants in genes like DOCK8 and SCN2A in children with , achieving diagnostic yields through high-confidence calls in ~95% of targeted exons. Concurrently, WES uncovered the genetic basis of via mutations in MLL2 (now KMT2D), reported by Ng et al. in a cohort of 10 affected individuals, demonstrating scalability to small pedigrees and emphasizing heterozygous loss-of-function variants. These applications shifted paradigms from linkage-based mapping to direct variant interrogation, accelerating discovery rates. By 2011, WES had identified causal variants for over 20 Mendelian conditions, including Schinzel-Giedion syndrome (SETBP1) and variants contributing to autism spectrum disorders in large cohorts like those from the , where de novo events in regulators were enriched. Clinical translation advanced in 2012, with institutions like implementing WES in diagnostic pipelines for undiagnosed pediatric cases, yielding positive molecular diagnoses in ~18% of trios with suspected genetic disorders through hybrid capture kits covering >95% of consensus coding sequences. This milestone marked WES's transition from research tool to routine , supported by falling costs (under $1,000 per exome by mid-decade) and improved bioinformatics for . Subsequent years featured large-scale consortia applications, such as the 2013 Deciphering Developmental Disorders project in the UK, which applied WES to over 4,000 trios and diagnosed ~27% of cases with novel or known variants, informing genotype-phenotype correlations. In , 2011-2012 studies like those by Kandoth et al. used WES on tumor-normal pairs to catalog somatic mutations in , revealing mutated pathways in ~90% of samples and paving the way for precision . By 2015, WES had contributed to ~1,000 disease gene discoveries, with diagnostic rates in cohorts reaching 25-40%, though limited by non-coding variant oversight. These milestones underscore WES's causal impact on resolving in both rare monogenic and .

Sequencing Methodologies

Principles of Next-Generation Sequencing

Next-generation sequencing (NGS), also known as massively parallel sequencing, enables the simultaneous analysis of millions to billions of short DNA fragments, achieving throughput orders of magnitude higher than Sanger sequencing's chain-termination method, which processes one sequence at a time. Introduced commercially around 2005 with platforms like the 454 Genome Sequencer, NGS principles center on parallelizing the sequencing reaction across immobilized DNA clusters or single molecules, reducing per-base costs from approximately $10 in the early 2000s to under $0.01 by 2020. This shift supports applications in , including targeted approaches like , by generating vast datasets of short reads (typically 50–300 base pairs) that are assembled via computational alignment. The core workflow commences with nucleic acid extraction from biological samples, yielding high-quality DNA or RNA free of contaminants, followed by library preparation. In library preparation, genomic DNA is fragmented mechanically or enzymatically into segments of 100–500 base pairs, ends are repaired for blunt or A-overhang ligation, and platform-specific adapters—containing indices for multiplexing and priming sequences—are attached via ligation. Amplification then occurs, either through emulsion PCR (emPCR) for bead-based systems or solid-phase bridge amplification on flow cells, producing clonal clusters of up to 10^9 molecules per square millimeter to enhance signal detection. For targeted sequencing such as exomes, hybridization capture with biotinylated probes complementary to exonic regions enriches the library prior to amplification, focusing ~1–2% of the . Sequencing itself employs detection of nucleotide incorporation or ligation events in real time. In dominant sequencing-by-synthesis (SBS) methods, used by Illumina platforms processing over 90% of NGS data, reversible terminator nucleotides labeled with distinct fluorophores are added by ; incorporation halts extension, fluorescence is imaged to identify the base (A, C, G, or T), terminators are cleaved, and the cycle repeats for each position. Alternative principles include sequencing by ligation (e.g., Applied Biosystems SOLiD), where fluorescently labeled di- or trinucleotide probes are ligated to the template and queried in two-base encoding to reduce errors, or ion semiconductor sequencing (Ion Torrent), detecting pH changes from hydrogen ion release during without optics. These methods yield raw signals converted to base calls, with error rates around 0.1–1% per base, mitigated by high coverage (often 30–100x for exomes). Post-sequencing, bioinformatics pipelines handle : primary for base calling and scoring (e.g., Phred scores >Q30 indicating 99.9% accuracy), secondary alignment to genomes using tools like BWA or Bowtie, and tertiary detection via callers such as GATK, which model sequencing errors and population frequencies. This principled framework, emphasizing scalability and error correction through redundancy, has driven NGS adoption since its validation in projects like the Human Genome Project's later phases, though it introduces challenges like PCR-induced biases and short-read alignment ambiguities in repetitive regions.

Whole Exome Sequencing Techniques

Whole exome sequencing (WES) targets the approximately 1-2% of the human genome comprising protein-coding exons, using next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms after targeted enrichment to focus on these regions. The core technique involves preparing a sequencing library from genomic DNA, enriching for exonic sequences via hybridization capture, and generating high-depth sequence data to identify variants. This approach reduces sequencing costs compared to whole-genome sequencing by prioritizing functionally relevant areas, typically achieving 100x average coverage across ~30-60 Mb of targeted exome space. Library preparation begins with high-quality genomic DNA input, requiring at least 150 ng (preferably 500 ng) of purified, non-degraded DNA extracted via phenol:chloroform methods to ensure integrity. DNA is fragmented to 150-300 bp sizes using mechanical shearing (e.g., ultrasonication) or enzymatic methods like transposases in kits such as Illumina Nextera. Fragments undergo end repair, A-tailing, and ligation of platform-specific adapters for multiplexing and amplification, followed by limited PCR cycles (typically 6-12) to generate the library while minimizing bias. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples can be used but often yield lower-quality libraries due to degradation. Target enrichment predominantly employs solution-based hybridization capture, where biotinylated oligonucleotide probes (baits), designed to cover consensus coding sequences (CCDS) and additional untranslated regions, hybridize to library fragments in solution. Captured targets are isolated using streptavidin-coated magnetic beads, with non-hybridized off-target DNA washed away, followed by post-capture PCR amplification to enrich the pool. Common commercial kits include Agilent SureSelect (targeting ~50 Mb with 120 bp RNA baits, effective for indel detection), Roche NimbleGen SeqCap EZ (~64 Mb with 55-105 bp DNA probes, offering uniform GC-rich coverage), and Illumina TruSeq or IDT xGen panels (~39-62 Mb, using transposase-based prep for efficiency). Array-based capture, using probes immobilized on microarrays, is less common due to longer hybridization times and lower throughput. PCR-amplification-based methods are limited to smaller gene panels, not scalable for whole-exome coverage. Sequencing occurs on short-read NGS platforms, with Illumina systems (e.g., NovaSeq or HiSeq) dominating due to high throughput and accuracy; paired-end 150 reads are standard, generating at least 45 million reads per sample for ~100x mean depth across captured regions. Alternative platforms like Ion Torrent provide semiconductor-based detection but are less prevalent for WES owing to shorter reads and homopolymer errors. Post-sequencing, assesses on-target rate (typically 50-80%), duplication levels, and uniformity to mitigate biases in GC-rich or repetitive exons. Variations in probe design and hybridization conditions influence capture efficiency, with modern kits improving off-target reduction and variant detection in challenging regions.

Comparison to Whole Genome Sequencing

Whole exome sequencing (WES) selectively captures and sequences the exons, which constitute approximately 1-2% of the and encode proteins, in contrast to (WGS), which analyzes the entire ~3 billion base pairs, including non-coding introns, regulatory elements, and intergenic regions. This focused approach in WES enables higher sequencing depth (often 100x or more) within targeted regions for equivalent resource investment, improving sensitivity for detecting single nucleotide variants and small insertions/deletions in coding sequences. WGS, while providing uniform but shallower coverage (typically 30x genome-wide), better resolves structural variants, copy number variations, and non-coding mutations that WES may overlook due to capture inefficiencies or off-target gaps. Cost remains a primary differentiator, with WES historically 2-5 times less expensive than WGS owing to reduced volume—WES generates ~4-12 gigabases per sample versus ~90-120 gigabases for WGS—lowering sequencing, storage, and bioinformatics demands. As of 2023, WES costs ranged from $500-1,000 per sample, compared to $1,000-2,000 for WGS, though WGS prices have declined faster due to in high-throughput platforms, projecting parity in some clinical contexts by 2025. WES thus suits targeted investigations of protein-coding diseases, where non-coding contributions are minimal, but WGS offers superior comprehensiveness for or undiagnosed cases involving regulatory or somatic alterations.
AspectWhole Exome Sequencing (WES)Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS)
Genomic Coverage~1-2% (exons only); higher depth in targets (95-160x achieves 95% coding regions at ≥20x)100%; shallower uniform depth (e.g., 30x genome-wide, 98% at ≥20x in coding)
Variant DetectionExcels in coding SNVs/indels; misses ~5-10% of exonic variants due to capture bias; limited for structural/non-codingDetects broader variants including non-coding, de novo, and structural; higher overall rare variant yield
Cost and Data LoadLower (~$500-1,000); less burdenHigher (~$1,000-2,000); greater storage/ needs, but decreasing
Diagnostic YieldHigh for Mendelian/rare coding disorders (20-40% solve rate)Marginally higher (up to 10% more in trios); better for novel/non-coding causes
Despite WES's efficiency, its reliance on hybridization capture introduces biases, such as uneven coverage (e.g., GC-rich regions underrepresented), potentially reducing accuracy compared to WGS's PCR-free methods. WGS, however, demands advanced computational infrastructure for variant calling across vast non-coding "," where most variants are benign, complicating interpretation without prior disease hypotheses. In practice, WES predominates in clinical diagnostics for its balance of yield and feasibility, while WGS is preferred for research into population-level or non-Mendelian .

Applications in Research and Medicine

Diagnostic Uses in Rare Diseases

Whole exome sequencing (WES) has become a primary tool for diagnosing rare genetic diseases, particularly those suspected to be Mendelian in , by identifying pathogenic variants in protein-coding regions where approximately 85% of known disease-causing mutations reside. In clinical settings, WES is often applied to pediatric patients with undiagnosed developmental delays, intellectual disabilities, or congenital anomalies, enabling a molecular in cases to traditional testing. A 2019 study of over 3,000 unrelated patients with suspected rare disorders reported a diagnostic yield of 25% for WES, rising to 40% in trios (patient plus parents) due to improved variant filtering via inheritance patterns. This yield reflects the method's ability to detect de novo mutations, which account for up to 50% of cases in sporadic severe disorders like autism spectrum disorder or epileptic encephalopathies. Real-world implementations, such as the UK's Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) project initiated in 2015, have sequenced over 13,000 trios by 2020, yielding diagnoses in 28% of previously undiagnosed cases and identifying novel gene-disease associations in 15%. Similarly, the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN) in the , operational since 2013, integrates WES with phenotypic data, achieving a 35-40% solve rate for cases after extensive prior testing, often pinpointing variants in genes like SCN1A for or PIGA for congenital disorders of glycosylation. These successes stem from WES's cost-effectiveness—around $500-1,000 per exome as of 2023—compared to , while focusing on interpretable coding variants amenable to ACMG guidelines for pathogenicity classification. WES's diagnostic utility extends to adult-onset rare diseases, such as hereditary cardiomyopathies or ataxias, where reanalysis of prior sequencing data has increased yields by 10-20% over time due to accumulating variant databases like gnomAD, which by 2024 catalogs over 800,000 exomes for benign variant benchmarking. However, yield varies by disease category: highest (up to 50%) in neurodevelopmental disorders with high de novo rates, lower (10-15%) in heterogeneous adult phenotypes like idiopathic . Integration with RNA sequencing or functional assays enhances confirmation, as seen in a 2022 cohort where 11% of provisional WES diagnoses were refined via transcriptomics, underscoring the method's role in causal variant validation.00095-0) Despite these advances, negative WES results do not rule out non-coding or structural variants, prompting sequential or combined approaches in persistent cases.

Insights into Mendelian and Complex Disorders

Exome sequencing has profoundly impacted the discovery of causative variants in Mendelian disorders, which are typically monogenic conditions following predictable inheritance patterns such as autosomal dominant, recessive, or X-linked. In 2010, it was first applied successfully to identify biallelic mutations in the DHODH gene as the cause of , a rare craniofacial disorder, marking the initial proof-of-principle for using this method in human disease gene discovery. By 2011, over 30 Mendelian disease genes had been identified through , accelerating the pace beyond traditional linkage-based approaches. Clinical studies have reported diagnostic yields of approximately 25% in cohorts of patients with suspected genetic disorders evaluated via trio , where parental samples help distinguish de novo or inherited variants. As of 2019, next-generation sequencing methods, predominantly , accounted for about 36% (1,268 out of 3,549) of all reported Mendelian disease genes, demonstrating its efficiency in pinpointing rare, high-penetrance coding variants that were previously elusive. Ongoing efforts, such as those by the Centers for Mendelian Genomics, continue to uncover genes for hundreds of rare conditions by expanding phenotype-gene associations through large-scale sequencing. In complex disorders, characterized by polygenic architectures and environmental interactions, provides insights primarily into rare, protein-altering variants that contribute to disease risk, complementing genome-wide association studies focused on common variants. Analysis of exomes from 281,104 participants revealed that rare coding variants explain a substantial portion of for traits like levels and , with some variants conferring odds ratios exceeding 10 for specific conditions. For instance, in and other serious mental illnesses, whole in dense families has highlighted an enrichment of ultra-rare, damaging variants in genes involved in synaptic function, suggesting a role for such mutations alongside polygenic risk scores. However, its contributions remain incremental compared to Mendelian applications, as often involve non-coding regulatory elements outside the exome's scope, limiting resolution of full causal mechanisms without integration with whole-genome data. Diagnostic utility in complex neurodevelopmental disorders, such as , yields positive findings in 10-40% of cases, often revealing oligogenic or de novo contributions that inform recurrence risks. These insights underscore exome sequencing's strength in detecting functionally interpretable variants—single changes, small indels, and copy number alterations in coding regions—but highlight the need for orthogonal validation, such as functional assays, to confirm pathogenicity amid challenges like incomplete in . Annual discovery rates for Mendelian genes have reached around 300 via exome-based approaches, sustaining momentum in cataloging the estimated 4,000-8,000 such disorders while gradually refining polygenic models for common diseases.

Broader Genomic and Population Studies

The Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) aggregates exome sequencing data from over 730,000 individuals across diverse ancestries, enabling precise estimation of allele frequencies for coding variants and identification of population-specific patterns of genetic variation. This resource has revealed that loss-of-function variants in constrained genes occur at lower frequencies than expected under neutrality, reflecting purifying selection against deleterious coding mutations, with rates varying by ancestry due to differences in effective population size and demographic history. In large cohorts, exome data facilitates gene-burden analyses to quantify the contribution of rare coding variants to disease heritability, as demonstrated in studies of immune-mediated disorders where such variants explain a significant portion of polygenic risk in European-descent populations. Exome sequencing has been applied to dissect population structure and admixture, providing higher resolution for coding regions compared to SNP arrays in some contexts, particularly for rare variants that inform recent evolutionary history. In isolated populations, such as the Vis group in , whole-exome sequencing uncovered elevated frequencies of homozygous loss-of-function variants attributable to founder effects and , highlighting how reduced diversity amplifies the detectability of selection signals in coding sequences. These analyses underscore exome data's utility in modeling migration and bottlenecks, where coding variants under selection serve as markers of adaptive processes more reliably than neutral non-coding sites. In evolutionary , exome-wide scans have detected signatures of polygenic in coding regions, such as heightened selection on genes related to pigmentation and in Arctic indigenous groups like the Nganasans, evidenced by an excess of derived alleles in functional exons compared to neutral expectations. Similarly, exome data from temperate plant populations have revealed mitigating local in coding loci under climatic pressure, with selective sweeps identifiable through reduced polymorphism in targeted exons. Such findings emphasize that while exome sequencing captures only protein-coding , it offers causal insights into functional by prioritizing variants with direct phenotypic effects, though interpretations must account for incomplete coverage of regulatory elements.

Limitations and Criticisms

Technical and Coverage Shortcomings

Whole exome sequencing (WES) exhibits uneven coverage across targeted exons, with sequence reads often distributed non-uniformly, leading to low-coverage regions that compromise variant calling accuracy. This variability arises from capture kit inefficiencies and sequencing biases, where certain genomic features like GC-rich or repetitive sequences are underrepresented, resulting in effective coverage below the targeted 95% of coding regions in many datasets. Capture efficiency remains a persistent technical limitation, with platforms such as Agilent SureSelect yielding 42-58% of reads on target and Illumina TruSeq around 45-46%, necessitating higher sequencing depths to compensate for off-target reads and achieve adequate exon coverage.00127-3.pdf) Even modern kits, while improving to over 97.5% at 10x depth and 95% at 20x, still suffer from platform-specific biases that exacerbate undercoverage in medically relevant genes, such as those with high homology or pseudogenes. Short-read technologies inherent to WES struggle with detecting insertions/deletions (indels) and structural variants due to alignment ambiguities in complex regions like homopolymers, contributing to error rates and false negatives. Nonuniformity is further compounded by sample-specific factors, including DNA quality and library preparation artifacts, which can reduce callable regions by up to 10-20% in clinical applications. These shortcomings collectively limit WES's sensitivity for rare variants, often requiring supplementary methods like targeted resequencing for validation.

Challenges in Variant Interpretation

Interpreting variants identified through whole exome sequencing (WES) presents substantial hurdles due to the high volume of detected alterations—often thousands per sample—most of which represent benign common polymorphisms rather than disease-causing changes. Distinguishing pathogenic variants requires integrating multiple lines of evidence, including population allele frequencies, computational predictions of functional impact, and segregation patterns in families, yet these tools frequently yield inconclusive results. The American College of and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines provide a framework for classification into categories such as pathogenic, likely pathogenic, benign, likely benign, or variants of uncertain significance (VUS), but application remains subjective and resource-intensive. A predominant issue is the prevalence of VUS, which over 70% of unique variants in databases like ClinVar are classified as such, with rates growing over time due to expanding genomic data without corresponding functional validation. In WES and genome sequencing contexts, VUS reporting occurs in approximately 22.5% of cases, lower than in multi-gene panels (32.6%) but still nondiagnostic and complicating clinical decision-making. Among tested individuals, 41% harbor at least one VUS, with 31.7% receiving only VUS results, often leading to retesting or delayed diagnoses as evidence accumulates—10-15% of reclassified VUS shift to pathogenic or likely pathogenic. Additional pitfalls include incomplete , where pathogenic variants do not consistently manifest phenotypes, and phenocopies from environmental or non-genetic factors mimicking hereditary patterns. Technical artifacts from variant calling, such as alignment errors in repetitive regions or pseudogenes, can generate false positives that evade initial filters, necessitating orthogonal validation like . Rare variants in understudied populations lack robust frequency data, exacerbating misclassification risks, while the absence of comprehensive functional assays—due to ethical and logistical constraints—limits for missense or synonymous changes. These factors contribute to diagnostic , with unsolved cases often attributable to interpretive complexity rather than sequencing failures.

Economic and Practical Barriers

The high cost of whole exome sequencing (WES) remains a primary economic barrier, with estimates ranging from $555 to $5,169 per sample, often exceeding $2,000 in clinical settings as of recent analyses. These figures encompass sequencing, library preparation, and basic analysis but exclude downstream bioinformatics and interpretation, which can add hundreds per sample depending on complexity. In comparison to targeted panels, WES incurs higher expenses due to broader coverage, limiting its routine use despite superior diagnostic yields in undiagnosed cases. Reimbursement challenges exacerbate issues, as insurers frequently coverage for WES owing to perceived insufficient of clinical and high financial burden, with rates reaching 47.5% in some U.S. cohorts. In resource-constrained regions, such as , adoption is further hindered by lack of public funding and infrastructure for scaling WES, confining it to research or affluent private sectors. Even in high-income settings, hospitals face economic disincentives, as upfront investments in sequencing platforms and data storage yield long-term returns only through high-volume applications, which many lack. Practical barriers include the requirement for specialized computational infrastructure to handle the terabytes of data generated per exome, necessitating robust servers, software pipelines, and ongoing maintenance costs not always accounted for in sequencing quotes. Variant interpretation demands multidisciplinary teams of bioinformaticians, geneticists, and clinicians, whose scarcity delays implementation and increases operational overhead. Turnaround times for WES, typically 1-2 weeks in optimized labs but extending to months in standard clinical workflows, outpace targeted tests, posing challenges for time-sensitive diagnostics like pediatric or prenatal cases. In underserved populations, these factors compound with logistical hurdles, such as sample transport and limited genetic counseling, underscoring systemic inequities in genomic testing deployment.

Ethical and Societal Implications

Informed consent for is complicated by the test's broad scope, which can reveal pathogenic variants, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), and unsolicited secondary findings beyond the primary diagnostic aim, often overwhelming patients with uncertainties that traditional genetic tests do not produce. Clinical geneticists typically address these elements—test purpose, potential outcomes, familial implications, and result interpretation—during sessions lasting 30–45 minutes, employing layered approaches with initial concise overviews followed by tailored details, analogies (e.g., comparing sequencing to an ), and encouragement of questions to enhance comprehension. However, challenges persist, including time constraints in mainstream clinical settings, patient misconceptions (e.g., about repercussions), language barriers, and varying levels, which genetic counselors mitigate by prioritizing collaborative decision-making, expectation management, and understanding assessment over exhaustive technical explanations. In pediatric cases, must navigate additional ethical tensions, such as obtaining child assent where feasible and weighing long-term implications for relatives, while avoiding therapeutic misconceptions about guaranteed diagnoses. Privacy risks arise from exome sequencing's generation of voluminous data covering approximately 1–2% of the genome's protein-coding regions, which contain highly identifiable single polymorphisms (SNPs) susceptible to re-identification attacks even in ostensibly anonymized datasets. Sharing exome data in databases amplifies these vulnerabilities, as demonstrated by 2024 analyses showing that linking genomic variants from public and private repositories can deanonymize individuals, potentially exposing sensitive without consent. Under frameworks like HIPAA, genetic data may be disclosed to healthcare providers without explicit permission in certain scenarios, heightening misuse risks by insurers, employers, or forensic entities, as seen in cases leveraging consumer databases for identifications. Consent processes must therefore explicitly cover , secondary uses, and breach safeguards, with recommendations emphasizing -centric controls, such as opt-in and transparency, to balance benefits against these persistent threats.

Management of Incidental Findings

In exome sequencing, incidental findings—also termed secondary findings—consist of pathogenic or likely pathogenic in genes unrelated to the primary diagnostic indication but associated with significant health risks amenable to intervention. These arise due to the broad coverage of coding regions, potentially revealing risks for conditions such as hereditary cancers or cardiovascular disorders. prioritizes those with established clinical utility to enable preventive measures, while avoiding disclosure of of uncertain significance that could cause undue anxiety without actionable benefit. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) established foundational guidelines in 2013, recommending that clinical laboratories actively search for and report such variants in a minimum set of 56 genes linked to highly penetrant, treatable or preventable conditions across categories including cancer susceptibility (e.g., TP53, PTEN), cardiac arrhythmias (e.g., KCNQ1, ), and . Variants qualifying for reporting must meet criteria for known pathogenic or expected pathogenic status based on population data, functional evidence, and segregation studies, with updates to the gene list (e.g., ACMG SF v3.0 and later versions) reflecting ongoing curation by expert panels to incorporate new evidence on actionability. Laboratories performing constitutional are required to include this analysis, reporting findings directly to ordering clinicians regardless of patient age, though pre-test counseling must inform patients of the possibility, allowing opt-out by declining sequencing altogether. Post-disclosure management entails multidisciplinary coordination: to interpret variant pathogenicity and , confirmatory testing via targeted methods, and specialist referrals for surveillance or therapy, such as enhanced or implantation of cardioverter-defibrillators. Actionable incidental findings occur in 1-3% of exome sequences across large cohorts, with rates varying by ancestry and sequencing depth; for example, 3.02% in the eMERGE network's 21,915 participants and 0.58% for unsolicited findings in 16,482 pediatric cases. Non-ACMG-recommended incidental variants, which constitute the majority, are typically not pursued due to insufficient of net benefit, though some programs offer opt-in for broader disclosure, yielding uptake rates of about 50% among informed patients. Key challenges include clinician burden from interpreting and coordinating long-term follow-up, potential psychological distress to patients from unanticipated risks, and resource strain in settings where providers report concerns over direct-to-patient reporting and sustained management needs. Ethical tensions persist between beneficence—delivering potentially lifesaving information—and respect for , with critics arguing mandatory reporting overrides preferences, while proponents emphasize professional duty akin to other medical disclosures. Empirical underscore low recontact rates for updated interpretations (under 10% in follow-up studies), highlighting the need for standardized protocols to balance disclosure with practical feasibility.

Debates in Prenatal and Pediatric Contexts

In prenatal , obtaining valid poses significant challenges due to the intricate nature of genomic data, the emotional distress of fetal anomalies, and the compressed timeline for decision-making, often within weeks of invasive testing. Parents may receive generic consent forms to mitigate , yet debates persist on whether this suffices for understanding risks like variants of uncertain significance (VUS), which can comprise up to 20-30% of results and complicate reproductive choices such as termination without definitive pathogenicity. The return and management of findings further fuels controversy, including incidental discoveries like non-paternity (reported in 1-2% of cases) or carrier status for adult-onset disorders, raising questions about parental versus duties to the future child, such as promoting or ensuring health. Professional responsibilities extend to , reanalysis over time, and counseling on non-actionable results, with the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) issuing "points to consider" rather than prescriptive guidelines, underscoring unresolved tensions between diagnostic potential and potential harm from uncertainty. In pediatric contexts, exome sequencing's diagnostic yield of approximately 25-40% for congenital anomalies or supports its endorsement by ACMG as a first- or second-tier test, yet ethical debates focus on unsolicited or secondary findings, which parents often request despite conflicts with the child's future autonomy and right not to know. These findings, actionable in about 1-4% of cases per ACMG criteria, can reveal risks irrelevant to childhood, prompting burdens like parental anxiety or strained family dynamics, with limited empirical data on long-term impacts. Consent processes remain contentious, balancing parental authority with assent requirements for older children (typically ages 7-12 and above), amid concerns over comprehension of probabilistic results and the gap between extensive data and actionable interventions. Access inequities, driven by variability and geographic expertise shortages, amplify debates on , as lower correlates with reduced uptake despite potential benefits.

Empirical Data and Statistics

Genomic Proportions and Variant Statistics

The exome, comprising the protein-coding portions of the , represents approximately 1-1.5% of the total genomic sequence, equivalent to roughly 30-45 million base pairs out of the approximately 3 billion base pairs in the diploid . Despite this limited proportion, exonic regions harbor about 85% of known disease-associated genetic variants, as mutations altering protein sequences are disproportionately linked to Mendelian disorders and . In whole (WES) of unrelated individuals of European ancestry, the median number of coding variants per totals around 18,400-20,000 single variants (SNVs) and small insertions/deletions (indels), with approximately half being synonymous (not altering the ) and the remainder nonsynonymous. Nonsynonymous variants include missense changes (altering a single ) and predicted loss-of-function (pLoF) variants such as mutations, frameshifts, or splice-site disruptions, which occur at medians of about 8,700 and 120 per individual, respectively. Across large cohorts like the UK Biobank's initial 49,960 exomes, these variants collectively catalog over 4 million unique coding positions, with rare pLoF alleles ( <0.01%) numbering fewer than 1% of total exonic variation but enriched in disease-relevant genes.
Variant TypeMedian per IndividualApproximate Proportion of Total Coding Variants
Synonymous9,584~50%
Missense8,702~47%
pLoF120~1%
Data derived from exome sequencing of 49,960 UK Biobank participants. Synonymous variants predominate due to neutral evolutionary pressures, while missense and pLoF variants exhibit purifying selection, appearing at lower population frequencies; for instance, pLoF alleles are depleted in essential genes compared to non-essential ones. In aggregate, an individual's exome carries 10,000-12,000 nonsynonymous variants, of which only a small fraction (typically <1%) are rare and potentially pathogenic, necessitating prioritization tools for clinical interpretation.

Diagnostic Yield and Success Rates

The diagnostic yield of clinical exome sequencing (ES), defined as the proportion of cases yielding a molecular diagnosis explaining the patient's phenotype, varies by patient population and testing context but typically ranges from 25% to 40% in pediatric cohorts with suspected rare genetic disorders. A 2023 meta-analysis of ES in pediatric rare diseases reported an aggregated yield of approximately 37.8%, with higher rates observed in trio sequencing (probands plus parents) compared to proband-only analysis. In a cohort of 868 children with neurodevelopmental disorders, the yield reached 27% overall, rising to 34% for intellectual disability cases and 32% for epileptic encephalopathies. These figures reflect ES's strength in identifying single-nucleotide variants and small indels in coding regions, which account for a majority of Mendelian disease causes. In adult patients, diagnostic yields are generally lower, often 10-20%, due to greater phenotypic heterogeneity, later onset, and confounding environmental factors. A 2025 study of adult rare disease referrals reported yields varying from 6.1% for certain neuromuscular indications to 42.9% for select metabolic disorders, with neurodevelopmental phenotypes yielding 13.3%. Prenatal ES yields are similarly modest, around 20-30%, limited by fetal tissue availability and incomplete penetrance data. Factors influencing yield include prior negative testing (higher yield post-exclusion of common variants), phenotypic specificity, and bioinformatics pipelines; for instance, reanalysis of unsolved cases can increase yield by 10-15% over time as databases expand. Technical success rates for ES exceed 95% in most clinical labs, encompassing successful capture, sequencing coverage (typically >95% of exome at 20x depth), and variant calling, though challenges arise in samples with low DNA quality or high GC content. Clinical utility extends beyond diagnosis, with 60-80% of positive cases informing management changes, such as targeted therapies or avoiding ineffective treatments. Comparative studies show ES yields comparable to chromosomal microarray in many pediatric settings (ES: 27.1% vs. CMA: 13.6% for short stature), but lower than whole-genome sequencing (WGS) by 5-10% due to non-coding variant misses. Ongoing improvements in variant interpretation databases continue to refine these metrics.
ContextDiagnostic Yield RangeKey Reference
Pediatric rare diseases (trio ES)30-40%Meta-analysis, 2023
Neurodevelopmental disorders25-35%Cohort of 868 children, 2023
Adult rare diseases10-20%Indication-specific, 2025
Epilepsy/encephalopathies30-43%Specialized cohorts, 2024

Comparative Efficacy Metrics

Exome sequencing (ES) typically achieves diagnostic yields of 25% to 40% in unselected cohorts of patients with suspected rare genetic disorders, with higher rates (up to 58%) in pediatric cases after negative conventional testing. In direct comparisons with whole-genome sequencing (WGS), ES demonstrates slightly lower but comparable efficacy for identifying coding variants, which predominate in Mendelian diseases; one modeling study in children with suspected genetic disorders reported yields of 58% for first-line ES versus 64% for WGS, attributing the difference to WGS's detection of non-coding and structural variants missed by ES. Meta-analyses indicate variability, with some showing ES yields exceeding WGS (40% versus 34%) due to cohort heterogeneity and ES's focus on high-confidence exonic regions, though WGS generally offers incremental benefits (5-10% additional diagnoses) at higher computational and interpretive costs. Compared to targeted gene panels, ES provides superior breadth for heterogeneous or undiagnosed cases, though panels excel in cost and speed when a narrow differential is suspected. In primary immunodeficiencies, targeted panels yielded 56% diagnoses across 780 patients, with sequential ES adding only 2% more (total 58%), while standalone ES in challenging subsets reached 45%; panels cost $1,700 per test with <4-week turnaround versus $2,500 and 3 months for ES. Broader reviews confirm ES's advantage (30-40% yield) over small panels (10-20%) in unselected cohorts, as panels limit detection to predefined s, potentially missing novel or atypical variants. Versus chromosomal microarray analysis (CMA), ES detects sequence-level variants absent in CMA, yielding combined diagnostic rates of 20-30% in conditions like , where ES alone contributes 15-25% beyond CMA's copy number focus. Cost-effectiveness analyses favor ES over WGS for initial broad screening, with ES testing at €1,800 ($1,958) versus WGS at €3,700 ($4,024), though WGS proves viable as first-line (€21,000-€30,000 incremental cost per additional diagnosis) in severely ill infants to expedite comprehensive results.
Sequencing MethodTypical Diagnostic YieldKey ContextsRelative Cost (per test)Source
(ES)25-58%Pediatric rare diseases, post-negative testing€1,800 ($1,958)
Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS)34-64%Comprehensive variant detection, including non-coding€3,700 ($4,024)
Targeted Panels10-56%Focused differentials (e.g., immunodeficiencies)$1,700
Conventional/43%Initial cytogenetic or single-gene tests€450 ($489)
These metrics underscore ES's balance of efficacy and practicality for exonic-focused diagnostics, with WGS reserved for unresolved cases requiring non-coding interrogation, though empirical gains from WGS remain modest relative to increased data volume and analysis demands.

References

  1. https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Exome
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4051326/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7205110/
  4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41525-020-00144-x
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11552425/
  6. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/sequencing/
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666979X23000629
  8. https://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/what-exome-sequencing
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/exome
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4528311/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3926691/
  12. https://www.illumina.com/techniques/sequencing/dna-sequencing/whole-genome-sequencing/whole-genome-vs-exome.html
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10760453/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3708544/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10112331/
  16. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49782-0
  17. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1993/press-release/
  18. https://www.genome.gov/25520306/online-education-kit-1977-introns-discovered
  19. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1525084113
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6994983/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2953745/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10246072/
  23. https://karger.com/phg/article/19/6/315/272792/The-Rise-and-Rise-of-Exome-Sequencing
  24. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.113.001284
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3543920/
  26. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2011-12-9-128
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2847889/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19915526/
  29. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2010-11-12-144
  30. https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2011-12-9-228
  31. https://academic.oup.com/bfg/article/15/5/374/2240049
  32. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2314761
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6020069/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10376292/
  35. https://www.illumina.com/science/technology/next-generation-sequencing/beginners.html
  36. https://nisc.nih.gov/docs/FAQ_whole_exome.pdf
  37. https://eurjmedres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40001-024-02063-4
  38. https://sequencing.roche.com/us/en/article-listing/wes-wgs-custom.html
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4755152/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4418901/
  41. https://3billion.io/blog/which-is-the-best-ngs-approach-for-rare-disease-diagnosis-panels-wes-or-wgs
  42. https://www.nature.com/articles/gim2017119
  43. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S109836002100023X
  44. https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/
  45. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1306555
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929719302745
  47. https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/Centers-for-Mendelian-Genomics-uncovering-the-genomic-basis-of-hundreds-of-rare-conditions
  48. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03855-y
  49. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25664-7
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3459641/
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383574222000187
  52. https://news.mayocliniclabs.com/genetics/hereditary/exploratory-testing/whole-exome-sequencing/
  53. https://www.genome.gov/news/news-release/NIH-funds-new-effort-to-discover-genetic-causes-of-single-gene-disorders
  54. https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/news/2023-11-gnomad-v4-0/
  55. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1606460113
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4950961/
  57. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/34/11/2913/4098817
  58. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.16.381004v1
  59. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28408746/
  60. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316090187_Novel_metrics_to_measure_coverage_in_whole_exome_sequencing_datasets_reveal_local_and_global_non-uniformity
  61. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41436-018-0004-x
  62. https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-024-11196-z
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9541396/
  64. https://www.nostos-genomics.com/news/navigating-the-limitations-of-whole-exome-sequencing-in-complex-genomic-regions
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10415152/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8057342/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3496831/
  68. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41525-022-00295-z
  69. https://bmcmedgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12920-016-0213-6
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360025001480
  71. https://ir.genedx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/genedx-announces-data-demonstrating-whole-exome-and-genome
  72. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2810999
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10555957/
  74. https://bionano.com/blogs/identifying-causal-variants-in-mendelian-diseases-common-pitfalls-and-strategies/
  75. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-020-00791-w
  76. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-014-0089-z
  77. https://academic.oup.com/bib/article/25/2/bbad508/7585875
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10623530/
  79. https://www.gimjournal.org/article/S1098-3600%2821%2904673-6/fulltext
  80. https://www.unmc.edu/bsbc/services/pricing.html
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7870529/
  82. https://etd.ohiolink.edu/acprod/odb_etd/ws/send_file/send?accession=osu1617892968906938&disposition=inline
  83. https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-022-01809-y
  84. https://compassbioinfo.com/blog/the-economics-of-genomic-medicine-why-hospitals-cant-afford-to-wait/
  85. https://www.amp.org/advocacy/advocacy-resources/coverage-and-reimbursement/ngs-pricing-project/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4982236/
  87. https://www.reddit.com/r/genomics/comments/1k6pllr/whats_the_cost_of_whole_exome_sequencing_only/
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360024000352
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7422696/
  90. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mgg3.1882
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7413244/
  92. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03236-1
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3727274/
  94. https://www.gimjournal.org/article/S1098-3600(25)00101-7/fulltext
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7713503/
  96. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-021-00964-0
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overall-frequency-of-Incidental-Findings-across-the-eMERGEIII-IF-cohort_fig1_342217340
  98. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mgg3.2180
  99. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34768014/
  100. https://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-022-01139-2
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5836985/
  102. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-022-01225-4
  103. https://www.gimjournal.org/article/S1098-3600(21)01166-7/fulltext
  104. https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pd.6687
  105. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360021051686
  106. https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-021-02830-w
  107. https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2016100
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8420043/
  109. https://www.cgm.northwestern.edu/cores/nuseq/services/next-generation-sequencing/wes.html
  110. https://www.elementbiosciences.com/blog/whole-exome-sequencing-an-efficient-path-to-understanding-disease
  111. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2853-0
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/whole-exome-sequencing
  113. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40022598/
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12194986/
  115. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1769721225000370
  116. https://www.gimopen.org/article/S2949-7744%2825%2900172-4/fulltext
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10246153/
  118. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79872-4
  119. https://www.gimjournal.org/article/S1098-3600%2823%2900909-7/fulltext
  120. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2808913
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40519120/
  122. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2814303
  123. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37695591/
  124. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.17.23292722v1.full-text
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5683423/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.