Concordance between whole‐exome sequencing and clinical Sanger sequencing: implications for patient care
The clinical translation of next‐generation sequencing has created a paradigm shift in the diagnostic assessment of individuals with suspected rare genetic diseases. Whole‐exome sequencing (WES) simultaneously examines the majority of the coding portion of the genome and is rapidly becoming accepted...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Molecular genetics & genomic medicine 2016-09, Vol.4 (5), p.504-512 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 512 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 504 |
container_title | Molecular genetics & genomic medicine |
container_volume | 4 |
creator | Hamilton, Alison Tétreault, Martine Dyment, David A. Zou, Ruobing Kernohan, Kristin Geraghty, Michael T. Hartley, Taila Boycott, Kym M. |
description | The clinical translation of next‐generation sequencing has created a paradigm shift in the diagnostic assessment of individuals with suspected rare genetic diseases. Whole‐exome sequencing (WES) simultaneously examines the majority of the coding portion of the genome and is rapidly becoming accepted as an efficient alternative to clinical Sanger sequencing for diagnosing genetically heterogeneous disorders. Among reports of the clinical and diagnostic utility of WES, few studies to date have directly compared its concordance to Sanger sequencing, which is considered the clinical “gold standard”. We performed a direct comparison of 391 coding and noncoding polymorphisms and variants of unknown significance identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the WES results of 26 patients. Of the 150 well‐covered coding variants identified by Sanger sequencing, 146 (97.3%) were also reported by WES. Nine genes were excluded from the comparison due to consistently low coverage in WES, which might be attributed to the use of older exome capture kits. We performed confirmatory Sanger sequencing of discordant variants; including five variants with discordant bases and four with discordant zygosity. Confirmatory Sanger sequencing supported the original Sanger report for three of the five discordant bases, one was shown to be a false positive supporting the WES data, and one result differed from both the Sanger and WES data. Two of the discordant zygosity results supported Sanger and the other two supported WES data. We report high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and recommend the use of supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients were diagnosed through WES.
The direct comparison of 391 coding and intronic variants identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the whole‐exome sequencing (WES) results of 26 previously undiagnosed patients identified high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and highlighting the need for supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of t |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/mgg3.223 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5023935</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1827918120</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5933-faebf07b8e215f113dd904c3c6d4a381e8096a8364f17d1550e8d5c9e6d0f1a23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNktFqFDEUhgdRbGkLPoEEvPFmanKSySReCLLYVWjxQr0O2cyZaZaZZE12XXvnI_QZ-yTN2lpWQTE3OfB__D_n8FfVM0ZPGaXwahoGfgrAH1WHwEHUGqR-vDcfVCc5L2l5Sgkm26fVAbSyAWjVYbWcxeBi6mxwSBa43iIGsr2MI978uMbvcUKS8esGg_NhIDZ0xI0-eGdH8smGAdOe_Jr4aTUWbe1jyKSPiazKjGFNnE14XD3p7Zjx5P4_qr6cvfs8e1-ff5x_mL09r12jOa97i4uetguFwJqeMd51mgrHneyE5YqholpaxaXoWduxpqGousZplB3tmQV-VL25811tFhN2ruQnO5pV8pNNVyZab35Xgr80Q_xmGgpc86YYvLw3SLHsltdm8tnhONqAcZMNU9BqphjQ_0FBSCl_oi_-QJdxk0K5hAHQFKgQUvyLKolagFJqL9almHPC_mE7Rs2uFGZXiuLLC_p8_xoP4K8KFKC-A7Z-xKu_GpmL-ZzvDG8BLYTBdA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1819428880</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Concordance between whole‐exome sequencing and clinical Sanger sequencing: implications for patient care</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Hamilton, Alison ; Tétreault, Martine ; Dyment, David A. ; Zou, Ruobing ; Kernohan, Kristin ; Geraghty, Michael T. ; Hartley, Taila ; Boycott, Kym M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Alison ; Tétreault, Martine ; Dyment, David A. ; Zou, Ruobing ; Kernohan, Kristin ; Geraghty, Michael T. ; Hartley, Taila ; Boycott, Kym M. ; Care4Rare Canada Consortium ; FORGE Canada Consortium</creatorcontrib><description>The clinical translation of next‐generation sequencing has created a paradigm shift in the diagnostic assessment of individuals with suspected rare genetic diseases. Whole‐exome sequencing (WES) simultaneously examines the majority of the coding portion of the genome and is rapidly becoming accepted as an efficient alternative to clinical Sanger sequencing for diagnosing genetically heterogeneous disorders. Among reports of the clinical and diagnostic utility of WES, few studies to date have directly compared its concordance to Sanger sequencing, which is considered the clinical “gold standard”. We performed a direct comparison of 391 coding and noncoding polymorphisms and variants of unknown significance identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the WES results of 26 patients. Of the 150 well‐covered coding variants identified by Sanger sequencing, 146 (97.3%) were also reported by WES. Nine genes were excluded from the comparison due to consistently low coverage in WES, which might be attributed to the use of older exome capture kits. We performed confirmatory Sanger sequencing of discordant variants; including five variants with discordant bases and four with discordant zygosity. Confirmatory Sanger sequencing supported the original Sanger report for three of the five discordant bases, one was shown to be a false positive supporting the WES data, and one result differed from both the Sanger and WES data. Two of the discordant zygosity results supported Sanger and the other two supported WES data. We report high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and recommend the use of supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients were diagnosed through WES.
The direct comparison of 391 coding and intronic variants identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the whole‐exome sequencing (WES) results of 26 previously undiagnosed patients identified high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and highlighting the need for supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients received a molecular diagnosis through WES.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2324-9269</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2324-9269</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.223</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27652278</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Coverage ; Diagnostic systems ; Disease ; Disorders ; Gene sequencing ; Genes ; Genetic disorders ; Genomes ; Genomics ; Laboratories ; Methods ; Original ; Patients ; rare diseases ; Sanger sequencing ; whole‐exome sequencing ; Zygosity</subject><ispartof>Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2016-09, Vol.4 (5), p.504-512</ispartof><rights>2016 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2016. This work is published under http://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.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5933-faebf07b8e215f113dd904c3c6d4a381e8096a8364f17d1550e8d5c9e6d0f1a23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5933-faebf07b8e215f113dd904c3c6d4a381e8096a8364f17d1550e8d5c9e6d0f1a23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023935/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023935/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27652278$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tétreault, Martine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dyment, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Ruobing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kernohan, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geraghty, Michael T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartley, Taila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boycott, Kym M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Care4Rare Canada Consortium</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FORGE Canada Consortium</creatorcontrib><title>Concordance between whole‐exome sequencing and clinical Sanger sequencing: implications for patient care</title><title>Molecular genetics & genomic medicine</title><addtitle>Mol Genet Genomic Med</addtitle><description>The clinical translation of next‐generation sequencing has created a paradigm shift in the diagnostic assessment of individuals with suspected rare genetic diseases. Whole‐exome sequencing (WES) simultaneously examines the majority of the coding portion of the genome and is rapidly becoming accepted as an efficient alternative to clinical Sanger sequencing for diagnosing genetically heterogeneous disorders. Among reports of the clinical and diagnostic utility of WES, few studies to date have directly compared its concordance to Sanger sequencing, which is considered the clinical “gold standard”. We performed a direct comparison of 391 coding and noncoding polymorphisms and variants of unknown significance identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the WES results of 26 patients. Of the 150 well‐covered coding variants identified by Sanger sequencing, 146 (97.3%) were also reported by WES. Nine genes were excluded from the comparison due to consistently low coverage in WES, which might be attributed to the use of older exome capture kits. We performed confirmatory Sanger sequencing of discordant variants; including five variants with discordant bases and four with discordant zygosity. Confirmatory Sanger sequencing supported the original Sanger report for three of the five discordant bases, one was shown to be a false positive supporting the WES data, and one result differed from both the Sanger and WES data. Two of the discordant zygosity results supported Sanger and the other two supported WES data. We report high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and recommend the use of supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients were diagnosed through WES.
The direct comparison of 391 coding and intronic variants identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the whole‐exome sequencing (WES) results of 26 previously undiagnosed patients identified high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and highlighting the need for supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients received a molecular diagnosis through WES.</description><subject>Coverage</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Disorders</subject><subject>Gene sequencing</subject><subject>Genes</subject><subject>Genetic disorders</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Genomics</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>rare diseases</subject><subject>Sanger sequencing</subject><subject>whole‐exome sequencing</subject><subject>Zygosity</subject><issn>2324-9269</issn><issn>2324-9269</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNktFqFDEUhgdRbGkLPoEEvPFmanKSySReCLLYVWjxQr0O2cyZaZaZZE12XXvnI_QZ-yTN2lpWQTE3OfB__D_n8FfVM0ZPGaXwahoGfgrAH1WHwEHUGqR-vDcfVCc5L2l5Sgkm26fVAbSyAWjVYbWcxeBi6mxwSBa43iIGsr2MI978uMbvcUKS8esGg_NhIDZ0xI0-eGdH8smGAdOe_Jr4aTUWbe1jyKSPiazKjGFNnE14XD3p7Zjx5P4_qr6cvfs8e1-ff5x_mL09r12jOa97i4uetguFwJqeMd51mgrHneyE5YqholpaxaXoWduxpqGousZplB3tmQV-VL25811tFhN2ruQnO5pV8pNNVyZab35Xgr80Q_xmGgpc86YYvLw3SLHsltdm8tnhONqAcZMNU9BqphjQ_0FBSCl_oi_-QJdxk0K5hAHQFKgQUvyLKolagFJqL9almHPC_mE7Rs2uFGZXiuLLC_p8_xoP4K8KFKC-A7Z-xKu_GpmL-ZzvDG8BLYTBdA</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Hamilton, Alison</creator><creator>Tétreault, Martine</creator><creator>Dyment, David A.</creator><creator>Zou, Ruobing</creator><creator>Kernohan, Kristin</creator><creator>Geraghty, Michael T.</creator><creator>Hartley, Taila</creator><creator>Boycott, Kym M.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>Concordance between whole‐exome sequencing and clinical Sanger sequencing: implications for patient care</title><author>Hamilton, Alison ; Tétreault, Martine ; Dyment, David A. ; Zou, Ruobing ; Kernohan, Kristin ; Geraghty, Michael T. ; Hartley, Taila ; Boycott, Kym M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5933-faebf07b8e215f113dd904c3c6d4a381e8096a8364f17d1550e8d5c9e6d0f1a23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Coverage</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Disorders</topic><topic>Gene sequencing</topic><topic>Genes</topic><topic>Genetic disorders</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Genomics</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>rare diseases</topic><topic>Sanger sequencing</topic><topic>whole‐exome sequencing</topic><topic>Zygosity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hamilton, Alison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tétreault, Martine</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dyment, David A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zou, Ruobing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kernohan, Kristin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geraghty, Michael T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hartley, Taila</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Boycott, Kym M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Care4Rare Canada Consortium</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FORGE Canada Consortium</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Molecular genetics & genomic medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hamilton, Alison</au><au>Tétreault, Martine</au><au>Dyment, David A.</au><au>Zou, Ruobing</au><au>Kernohan, Kristin</au><au>Geraghty, Michael T.</au><au>Hartley, Taila</au><au>Boycott, Kym M.</au><aucorp>Care4Rare Canada Consortium</aucorp><aucorp>FORGE Canada Consortium</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Concordance between whole‐exome sequencing and clinical Sanger sequencing: implications for patient care</atitle><jtitle>Molecular genetics & genomic medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Mol Genet Genomic Med</addtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>504</spage><epage>512</epage><pages>504-512</pages><issn>2324-9269</issn><eissn>2324-9269</eissn><abstract>The clinical translation of next‐generation sequencing has created a paradigm shift in the diagnostic assessment of individuals with suspected rare genetic diseases. Whole‐exome sequencing (WES) simultaneously examines the majority of the coding portion of the genome and is rapidly becoming accepted as an efficient alternative to clinical Sanger sequencing for diagnosing genetically heterogeneous disorders. Among reports of the clinical and diagnostic utility of WES, few studies to date have directly compared its concordance to Sanger sequencing, which is considered the clinical “gold standard”. We performed a direct comparison of 391 coding and noncoding polymorphisms and variants of unknown significance identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the WES results of 26 patients. Of the 150 well‐covered coding variants identified by Sanger sequencing, 146 (97.3%) were also reported by WES. Nine genes were excluded from the comparison due to consistently low coverage in WES, which might be attributed to the use of older exome capture kits. We performed confirmatory Sanger sequencing of discordant variants; including five variants with discordant bases and four with discordant zygosity. Confirmatory Sanger sequencing supported the original Sanger report for three of the five discordant bases, one was shown to be a false positive supporting the WES data, and one result differed from both the Sanger and WES data. Two of the discordant zygosity results supported Sanger and the other two supported WES data. We report high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and recommend the use of supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients were diagnosed through WES.
The direct comparison of 391 coding and intronic variants identified by clinical Sanger sequencing to the whole‐exome sequencing (WES) results of 26 previously undiagnosed patients identified high concordance for well‐covered coding variants, supporting the use of WES as a screening tool for heterogeneous disorders, and highlighting the need for supplementary Sanger sequencing for poorly‐covered genes when the clinical suspicion is high. Importantly, despite remaining difficulties with achieving complete coverage of the whole exome, 10 (38.5%) of the 26 compared patients received a molecular diagnosis through WES.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>27652278</pmid><doi>10.1002/mgg3.223</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2324-9269 |
ispartof | Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2016-09, Vol.4 (5), p.504-512 |
issn | 2324-9269 2324-9269 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5023935 |
source | Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Coverage Diagnostic systems Disease Disorders Gene sequencing Genes Genetic disorders Genomes Genomics Laboratories Methods Original Patients rare diseases Sanger sequencing whole‐exome sequencing Zygosity |
title | Concordance between whole‐exome sequencing and clinical Sanger sequencing: implications for patient care |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T17%3A33%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Concordance%20between%20whole%E2%80%90exome%20sequencing%20and%20clinical%20Sanger%20sequencing:%20implications%20for%20patient%20care&rft.jtitle=Molecular%20genetics%20&%20genomic%20medicine&rft.au=Hamilton,%20Alison&rft.aucorp=Care4Rare%20Canada%20Consortium&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=504&rft.epage=512&rft.pages=504-512&rft.issn=2324-9269&rft.eissn=2324-9269&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/mgg3.223&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1827918120%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1819428880&rft_id=info:pmid/27652278&rfr_iscdi=true |