Elsevier

Genetics in Medicine

Volume 14, Issue 4, April 2012, Pages 399-404
Genetics in Medicine

Special-Article
Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome

https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2011.68Get rights and content
Under an Elsevier user license
open archive

Abstract

Purpose

With the advent of whole-genome sequencing made clinically available, the number of incidental findings is likely to rise. The false-positive incidental findings are of particular clinical concern. We provide estimates on the size of these false-positive findings and classify them into four broad categories.

Methods

Whole-genome sequences (WGS) of nine individuals were scanned with several comprehensive public annotation databases and average estimates for the number of findings. These estimates were then evaluated in the perspective of various sources of false-positive annotation errors.

Results

At present there are four main sources of false-positive incidental findings: erroneous annotations, sequencing error, incorrect penetrance estimates, and multiple hypothesis testing. Of these, the first two are likely to be addressed in the near term. Conservatively, current methods deliver hundreds of false-positive incidental findings per individual.

Conclusion

The burden of false-positives in whole-genome sequence interpretation threatens current capabilities to deliver clinical-grade whole-genome clinical interpretation. A new generation of population studies and retooling of the clinical decision-support approach will be required to overcome this threat.

Genet Med 2012:14(4):399–404

Keywords

clinical interpretation
false-positives
incidental findings
whole-genome sequencing

Cited by (0)