Next Article in Journal
Telomere Length, Telomerase Activity, and Vaginal Microbiome in Patients with HPV-Related Precancerous Lesions
Previous Article in Journal
Quadruplex Droplet Digital PCR Assay for Screening and Quantification of SARS-CoV-2
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 25
Issue 15
10.3390/ijms25158149
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Genomic Landscape of Branchio-Oto-Renal Syndrome through Whole-Genome Sequencing: A Single Rare Disease Center Experience in South Korea

by
Sung Ho Cho
1,
Sung Ho Jeong
1,
Won Hoon Choi
1 and
Sang-Yeon Lee
1,2,3,*
1
Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Genomic Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea
3
Sensory Organ Research Institute, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25(15), 8149; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25158149
Submission received: 3 July 2024 / Revised: 23 July 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 26 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research Advances in Whole-Genome/Exome Sequencing (WGS/WES) and Next-Generation Sequencing)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Branchio-oto-renal (BOR) and branchio-otic (BO) syndromes are characterized by anomalies affecting the ears, often accompanied by hearing loss, as well as abnormalities in the branchial arches and renal system. These syndromes exhibit a broad spectrum of phenotypes and a complex genomic landscape, with significant contributions from the EYA1 gene and the SIX gene family, including SIX1 and SIX5. Due to their diverse phenotypic presentations, which can overlap with other genetic syndromes, molecular genetic confirmation is essential. As sequencing technologies advance, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly used in rare disease diagnostics. We explored the genomic landscape of 23 unrelated Korean families with typical or atypical BOR/BO syndrome using a stepwise approach: targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing (Step 1), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) with copy number variation screening (Step 2), and WGS (Step 3). Integrating WGS into our diagnostic pipeline detected structure variations, including cryptic inversion and complex genomic rearrangement, eventually enhancing the diagnostic yield to 91%. Our findings expand the genomic architecture of BOR/BO syndrome and highlight the need for WGS to address the genetic diagnosis of clinically heterogeneous rare diseases.

1. Introduction

The branchio-oto-renal (BOR) and branchio-otic (BO) syndromes represent a complex spectrum of rare, genetically heterogeneous conditions characterized by anomalies affecting the ears, branchial arches, and renal system [1,2] Certain individuals may display symptoms typical of BOR/BO syndrome but lack renal abnormalities, leading to diagnoses of branchio-oto syndrome-1 [3] (BOS1; OMIM#602588) or branchio-oto syndrome-3 [4] (BOS3; OMIM#608389). Diagnostic criteria for these syndromes encompass both major and minor clinical features [5]: Major criteria include deafness (noted in 98.5% of cases), branchial anomalies (49–73%), preauricular pits (53–83%), and renal anomalies (38–70%), while minor criteria consist of anomalies in the external, middle, and inner ears, as well as preauricular tags. Moreover, some individuals exhibit atypical presentations that do not conform entirely to the standard diagnostic criteria despite harboring pathogenic variants in genes linked to the BOR/BO syndromes. These syndromes demonstrate a high penetrance for hearing impairment, affecting over 90% of individuals [5,6], with hearing loss presenting as mixed (50%), conductive (30%), or sensorineural (20%), ranging from mild to profound in severity.
Manifesting in roughly 1 in 40,000 individuals within European demographics and responsible for 2% of profound childhood deafness [7], this syndrome demonstrates autosomal dominant inheritance with notable variability in expression and high genetic penetrance [7,8,9]. The genetic landscape of BOR/BO syndrome is complex, with major contributions from the EYA1 gene [6,10,11] and the SIX gene family, including SIX1 [12] and SIX5 [13]. It is well known that EYA1 binds to SIX1 and SIX5 to form a bipartite transcription factor [14]. Especially, the SIX1 protein binds to the Eya domain of EYA1 using its Six domain and concurrently binds to DNA elements with its DNA binding homeodomain to form the EYA1-SIX1-DNA complex [15]. In turn, the EYA1-SIX1-DNA complex regulates organogenesis, including the branchial arch, otic, and renal systems [10,16]. EYA1 mutations are the most prevalent [10,11], affecting 40–75% of cases, whereas SIX1 mutations are found in a smaller portion of cases (3.0–4.5%) [12,16]. Variants in SIX5 also play a role [13,17], though they account for only 0–3.1% of incidences.
Since the 2010s, the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has significantly advanced our understanding of the genetic underpinnings of diseases [18,19]. Despite the genetic and phenotypic complexity of the syndrome, which complicates the accuracy of diagnoses, NGS has emerged as the preferred diagnostic tool due to its capacity to screen a wide range of genetic loci. Targeted panel sequencing (TPS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES) have been routinely used with varying success rates [20,21,22]. However, recent advancements in sequencing technologies have made whole-genome sequencing (WGS) more accessible [23], offering a broader and more detailed analysis of genomic variants than targeted approaches [24]. These developments have greatly expanded the potential for exploring the intricate genetic landscape of BOR/BO syndrome.
In this study, we explored the genomic landscape of 23 unrelated Korean families with typical or atypical BOR/BO syndrome using a stepwise approach. This stepwise approach included targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing (Step 1), exome sequencing-based copy number variations (CNV) screening coupled with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) (Step 2), and WGS (Step 3). This comprehensive analytical framework, aided by WGS, has enhanced the molecular diagnostic yield of BOR/BO syndrome compared to diagnostic rates from previous studies. Consequently, this expands our understanding of the genomic architecture of BOR/BO syndrome and highlights the need for WGS implementation to address the genetically undiagnosed clinically heterogeneous rare diseases, including those with BOR/BO syndrome.

2. Results

2.1. Cohort Description and Clinical Phenotypes

In our cohort study, a structured genetic testing protocol was applied to 41 patients with clinical suspicion of BOR/BO syndrome from 23 families to identify segregation with pathogenic variants linked to EYA1, SIX1, and ANKRD11 genes (Table 1). When examining the phenotypes that belong to the major criteria of BOR/BO syndrome, firstly, 40 (98%) patients experienced hearing loss—including conductive, mixed, and sensorineural. Branchial anomalies, preauricular pits, and renal anomalies were observed in twenty-seven (66%), thirty-four (83%), and six (15%) patients, respectively. Additional phenotypes corresponding to the minor criteria of BOR/BO syndrome, including external auditory canal (EAC; eight patients, 20%), middle ear (22 patients, 54%), and inner ear anomalies (sixteen patients, 39%), were observed in a smaller subset of the group. Patients who meet three of the major criteria (hearing loss, preauricular pits, branchial anomalies, renal anomalies, or auricular deformities), two of the major criteria with two minor criteria (inner ear anomalies, middle ear anomalies, external auditory canal anomalies, preauricular tags, facial asymmetry, or palatal anomalies), or one of major criterion with an affected first-degree relative meeting the criteria for BOR/BO syndrome can be clinically diagnosed with typical BOR/BO syndrome [10,25]. However, there are some patients who do not satisfy the clinical criteria for typical BOR/BO syndrome despite carrying a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant of BOR/BO syndrome. Such patients are diagnosed with atypical BOR/BO syndrome [17,26,27]. According to the previously mentioned clinical diagnostic criteria of BOR/BO syndrome, 63% and 34% of the patients were diagnosed with typical and atypical BOR/BO syndrome in this study, respectively (Table 1).

2.2. Stepwise Molecular Diagnostic Yield

The stepwise genetic diagnostic yield is shown in Figure 1. Initially, targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing were utilized to identify causative variants across the BOR/BO cohort. A total of 18 of the 23 families were genetically diagnosed with exome sequencing (molecular diagnostic yield = 78.3%), and their variants included single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), such as missense (seven families), nonsense (four families), and splicing variants (one family), or indel mutations (six families). For patients who remained undiagnosed after targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing (Step 1), exome sequencing-based CNV screening coupled with MLPA (Step 2) was applied. One subject was further genetically diagnosed in Step 2 (cumulative molecular diagnostic yield = 82.6%). Finally, WGS was applied to three patients who remained genetically undiagnosed after Step 2, and two of these subjects were further genetically diagnosed in Step 3 (cumulative molecular diagnostic yield = 91.3%). WGS improved the molecular diagnostic yield by 8.7%. The molecular diagnostic yield of the stepwise genomic pipeline is shown in Figure 1. Overall, genetic diagnosis was made in 21 (91.3%) of the 23 unrelated families with clinical suspicion of BOR/BO syndrome. All variants described herein were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic according to ACMG-AMP guidelines [28]. The molecular diagnostic yield of typical BOR/BO syndrome was 96%, whereas the molecular diagnostic yield of atypical BOR/BO syndrome was 93%. As shown in Table 1, most of the atypical BOR/BO syndrome patients had SIX1 mutation, which was consistent with previous studies showing that SIX1 variants cause a somewhat alleviated BOR/BO phenotype compared to EYA1 variants [5,15,17].

2.3. Genomic Landscape

Approximately 52% (12 families) of the cohort showed mutation of EYA1. Especially, 35% of the cohort showed SNVs in the coding region of EYA1, all of which were positioned at the EYA domain (ED); 4% showed SNVs at the canonical splicing region of EYA1; and 13% showed SVs, including EYA1. SVs of EYA1 included intragenic deletion (BOR09), complex genomic rearrangement (BOR02), and cryptic inversion (BOR05). WGS and bioinformatics analysis successfully detected two cases (BOR02 and BOR05) characterized by balanced SVs without copy number dosage alterations, which were otherwise challenging to detect with exome sequencing, CNV detection algorithm, and MLPA (Supplementary Figure S1). These cases exemplify the diagnostic added value of WGS in BOR/BO syndrome. The SV landscape of BOR/BO syndrome, as reviewed in the literature and this study, is depicted in Figure 2. All the SVs reported from cohort studies are shown to affect EYA1. Most of the SVs are deletions of EYA1 (88.9% of SVs), which includes entire or partial deletion of EYA1. Complex genomic rearrangement (3.7%), cryptic inversion (3.7%), and Alu element insertion of EYA1 (3.7%) are reported in a small proportion of SVs landscape. Collectively, these results demonstrate the substantial proportion of SVs underlying BOR/BO syndrome and the potential value of WGS for their detection.
Secondly, 35% (eight families) of the subjects showed SIX1 variants, all of which were SNVs in the coding region. All of the SNVs of SIX1, except for two located in the SIX domain (SD), were positioned in the homeodomain (HD). Lastly, there was a single patient (BOR21) harboring an ANKRD11 heterozygous variant exhibiting bilateral preauricular fistula, branchial anomalies on the anterior neck, and sensorineural hearing loss on initial examination, which meets three major criteria of BOR/BO syndrome. The patient also had a secundum atrial septal defect (ASD) and fibrolipoma of the filum terminale as additional findings. Exome sequencing identified a pathogenic indel variant (c.2409_2412del) of ANKRD11, causing a frameshift change (p.Glu805ArgfsTer57), which in turn leads to nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. ANKRD11 is known to cause KBG syndrome, characterized by macrodontia of the upper central incisors, distinctive craniofacial findings, short stature, skeletal anomalies, and neurologic involvement, including global developmental delay, seizures, and intellectual disability, which were not seen in our patient [29].

3. Discussion

There is growing evidence of the clinical usefulness of WGS in rare diseases. It is well known that WGS can identify variants that are not readily detected by exome sequencing, such as complex rearrangement, tandem repeat expansions, and deep intronic variants [30]. Such diagnostic superiority, as well as increased accessibility of WGS, have begun to replace WES with WGS as a first-line diagnostic test [30,31]. As shown in Figure 1, integrating WGS into the conventional genetic pipeline improved the overall molecular diagnostic yield by detecting complex SVs, which were otherwise challenging to detect with conventional technologies.
In the literature review (Table 2), the overall molecular diagnostic yield for clinically suspicious BOR/BO syndrome patients to date has ranged from 4 to 83%. Most of the studies employed direct sequencing with additional denatured high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) or single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis to detect SNVs of target genes [10,27,32,33]. However, these methods are inadequate for detecting cryptic SVs; hence, additional methods such as Southern blot, MLPA, or quantitative PCR have been adopted to identify SVs. In the systematic literature reviews, the proportion of SVs among total detected variants was approximately 9% (Table 2), and the genomic landscape was illustrated in Figure 2 [10,34]. The rationale behind the frequent occurrence of SVs in BOR/BO syndrome is that non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR) attributed to human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) elements located near the EYA1 gene is responsible for a significant portion of SVs [35,36]. Although targeted sequencing or MLPA has demonstrated excellent diagnostic yield for BOR/BO syndrome in the literature [5,37], there are variant types in the same causative genes of BOR/BO syndrome that cannot be detected by conventional targeted approaches. This study aims to improve diagnostic yield in a real-world setting by conducting a deep analysis of the target genes associated with BOR/BO syndrome using WGS. To achieve this, we developed a stepwise genomic pipeline (Figure 1). In this study, WGS successfully identified SVs such as cryptic inversion and complex genomic rearrangement, which were undetectable by conventional sequencing technologies, including exome sequencing, CNV detection algorithm, and MLPA. Our results demonstrate the diagnostic added value of WGS in BOR/BO syndrome, suggesting its potential applicability in the genetic diagnosis of clinically heterogeneous rare diseases.
In line with other genetic disorders, the mutational spectrum of BOR/BO syndrome varies according to genetic ancestry groups. In our cohort, 52% of the subjects exhibited EYA1 variants, while 35% had SIX1 variants. This is a slightly higher proportion of SIX1 variants compared to previously reported values of 3.0 to 4.5% [12,16]. Additionally, neither our cohort nor other Korean cohorts [38] harbored any SIX5 variants, in contrast to findings in Western populations [13,17].
Table 2. Literature review of BOR/BO syndrome cohort studies and this study.
Table 2. Literature review of BOR/BO syndrome cohort studies and this study.
NoPMIDWriter and ReferencesYearMolecular
Diagnostic Yield		Cohort InformationMethodEYA1SIX1SIX5ANKRD11SV Annotation
19361030Sonia Abdelhak et al. [39]199744% (16/36 families)36 families clinically diagnosed with BOR syndromePCR direct exon sequencing
Southern blot		16---1 EYA1 deletion from intron X to exon 16
1 EYA1 deletion from exon 9 to intron IX
1 EYA1 Alu insertion
210991693Sarah Rickard et al. [32]200061% (11/18 families)18 families with probable BOR syndromePCR direct exon sequencing
SSCP analysis		11----
315146463Eugene H. Chang et al. [10]200417% (19/106 families)106 families with two or more BOR featuresSSCP analysis
Bidirectional exon sequencing
Semi-quantitative fluorescent multiplex PCR		19---2 entire EYA1 deletions
1 EYA1 deletion from exon 10 to exon 12
416491411Michiyo Okada et al. [40]200633% (5/15 families)15 families with BOR syndrome or BOR-related conditionsPCR direct sequencing
RT-PCR		5----
517637804Kirsten Marie Sanggaard et al. [37]200783% (5/6 families)6 families clinically diagnosed with BOR syndromeMarker analysis
Linkage analysis
MLPA
PCR direct exon sequencing		41---
617357085Bethan E. Hoskins et al. [13]20075% (5/95 families)95 families who met BOR criteria but without EYA1 or SIX1 mutationsPCR direct exon sequencing--5--
718330911Amit Kochhar et al. [33]20084% (10/247 families)247 families with BOR syndromeDHPLC
Bidirectional exon sequencing
PCR direct exon sequencing		-10---
818220287Dana J. Orten et al. [27]200830% (76/248 families)248 families with at least one of the major BOR criteriaPCR direct exon sequencing
DHPLC		76----
919206155Tracy L. Stockley et al. [41]200982% (14/17 families)17 families with a clinical suspicion of BOR syndromeBidirectional exon sequencing
MLPA		14---1 entire EYA1 deletion
1 EYA1 deletion of exon 9
1 EYA1 deletion from exon 9 to exon 10
1021280147Krug et al. [17]201146% (45/124 families)124 families with BOR syndromeWhole-exome sequencing
Multiplex PCR
MLPA		423---
1122447252Shin-Hao Wang et al. [42]201216% (2/12 families)12 families who fulfilled the criteria for BOR syndromeDirect sequencing of EYA1/SIX1
Quantitative PCR		2----
1223840632Mee Hyun Song et al. [38]201371% (5/7 families)7 families with hearing loss and one or more typical features of BOR syndromePCR direct exon sequencing
MLPA		5---1 entire EYA1 deletion
1323851940Patrick D. Brophy et al. [43]201314% (5/32 families)32 BOR probands negative for coding sequence and splice site mutations in known BOR-causing genesArray-based CGH
Long-range PCR		5---1 EYA1 deletion from intron 17 to exon 18 and entire 3′ UTR
4 entire EYA1 deletions
1428583505Kyle D. Klingbeil et al. [44]201760% (6/10 families)10 families clinically diagnosed with BOR syndromeWhole-exome sequencing
Sanger sequencing		6---2 entire EYA1 deletions
1529500469Ai Unzaki et al. [45]201872% (26/36 families)36 families clinically diagnosed with BOR syndromeDirect exon sequencing
MLPA
Array-based CGH
NGS		221--1 EYA1 deletion from exon 10 to exon 18
1 EYA1 deletion from exon 2 to exon 3
1 EYA1 deletion from exon 2 to exon 12
1 EYA1 exon 12 deletion
2 EYA1 exon 17 deletions
1631427586Michie Ideura et al. [26]201932% (19/59 families)59 families clinically diagnosed with BOR/BO syndromeNGS
Array-based CGH		181--1 entire EYA1 deletion
This studyS. H. Cho et al.202491% (21/23 families)23 families with a clinical suspicion of BOR syndromeMLPA
Whole-exome sequencing
Whole-genome sequencing		128-11 EYA1 complex genomic rearrangement
1 EYA1 cryptic inversion
1 entire EYA1 deletion
Abbreviations: SV, structural variation; SSCP analysis, single-stranded conformation polymorphism analysis; DHPLC, denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography; MLPA, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification assay; Array-based CGH, array-based comparative genomic hybridization; NGS, next-generation sequencing.
Timely diagnosis and reducing the diagnostic odyssey of rare genetic disorders are crucial for appropriate intervention and improving patient prognosis. In this regard, improved molecular diagnostic yield aided by WGS has significant clinical implications. For example, genetic counseling, including preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) using molecular diagnostics, can be implemented in clinical practice to prevent the transmission of germline variants. Recently, it has been shown that PGD combined with NGS is effective in at-risk populations for preventing the birth of offspring with genetic hearing loss [46]. Moreover, potential therapeutics to edit causative variants could be possible for BOR/BO syndrome. CRISPR-based editing strategies were utilized to rectify complex SVs of the EYA1 gene [47], extending beyond point mutations. To advance such targeted therapies, including gene therapy, molecular genetic diagnosis is necessary, emphasizing the importance of implementing WGS in real-world practice [48].
In the case of a patient harboring an ANKRD11 variant (BOR21), KBG syndrome was molecularly diagnosed despite the presence of clinical BOR/BO phenotypes. This case highlights that phenotypic overlap can lead to clinical misdiagnosis of syndromic diseases. Not only KBG syndrome but also Townes–Brocks syndrome caused by SALL1 variants and branchio-oculo-facial syndrome (BOFS) caused by TFAP2A variants show pheno-typic overlap with BOR/BO syndrome [49,50,51,52]. Therefore, it is necessary to differentiate these conditions from BOR/BO syndrome, highlighting the important role of molecular diagnostics. Unlike targeted panel sequencing, WGS can capture the entire genome, enabling us to screen not only suspected genes but also other genes. To our knowledge, the functional pathogenicity of ANKRD11 variants is not intercorrelated with the EYA1-SIX1-DNA theory underlying the pathogenesis of BOR/BO syndrome. It is possible that molecular pathways beyond the genomic sequence, such as epigenetic mechanisms, might interplay to explain the phenotypic overlap of KBG syndrome and BOR/BO syndrome, similar to the overlap observed between CHARGE and Kabuki syndromes [53].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participants and Clinical Assessment

All procedures in this study were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB-H-2202-045-1298). A total of 41 patients from 23 unrelated families who were clinically suspected of having BOR/BO syndrome were enrolled. All participants were attending the Hereditary Hearing Loss Clinic within the Otorhinolaryngology division at the Center for Rare Diseases, Seoul National University Hospital, South Korea. The demographic and clinical phenotypes of the subjects were retrieved from electronic medical records, including underlying disease history, physical examinations, radiological imaging, otoendoscope findings, and audiological evaluations.

4.2. Conventional Genetic Pipeline

Genomic DNA from the subjects was extracted from peripheral blood samples using the Chemagic 360 instrument (Perkin Elmer, Baesweiler, Germany). Whole-exome sequencing was conducted using SureSelectXT Human All Exon V5 (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Sequence reads were aligned to the human reference genome (GRCh38) and analyzed with Genome Analysis Toolkit (GATK) [54] to detect single-nucleotide variations (SNVs) and indels. As previously described [15,55,56,57,58], bioinformatics analysis and stringent filtering based on following criteria were performed: (i) Selecting non-synonymous variants with quality scores > 30 and read depths > 10. (ii) Filtering variants with minor allele frequencies (MAFs) ≤ 0.001 based on population database, including gnomAD (v.4.1.0; https://gnomad.broadinstitute.org/; accessed on 1 May 2024) and a reference database of genetic variations in the Korean population (KOVA2) (v.2; https://www.kobic.re.kr/kova/; accessed on 1 May 2024). (iii) Assessing variant pathogenicity using in silico tools, including Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion (CADD) (v.1.7; https://cadd.gs.washington.edu/; accessed on 1 May 2024) and Rare Exome Variant Ensemble Learner (REVEL) (https://sites.google.com/site/revelgenomics/; accessed on 1 May 2024). (iv) Evaluating inheritance patterns and audiological/clinical phenotypes of variants and screening ClinVar and HGMD databases to check whether candidate variants had been previously identified in other patients. (v) Confirming candidate variants through Sanger sequencing and conducting segregation study via trio-sequencing using proband and parental DNA samples. Collectively, the pathogenicity of candidate variants was evaluated according to the ACMG-AMP guidelines for SNHL [59]. In cases of inconclusive whole-exome sequencing results, multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) was conducted. In parallel, copy number variations (CNVs) were detected using two exome sequencing-based algorithms: CNVkit [60] and Copy Number Inference from Exome Reads (CoNIFER) [61]. We also visually inspected copy number changes in candidate regions identified by these detection algorithms using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV).

4.3. Whole-Genome Sequencing and Bioinformatic Analysis

DNA libraries for whole-genome sequencing (WGS) were prepared using the TruSeq DNA PCR-Free kit (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) with 1 µg of genomic DNA. Sequencing was performed on the NovaSeq 6000 platform (Illumina) to generate 151 bp paired-end reads. The raw sequencing data and subsequent analysis were managed using RareVision™ (Genome Insight, Inc., Daejeon, Republic of Korea). Reads were aligned to the GRCh38 reference genome using the BWA-MEM algorithm, followed by removal of duplicate reads with SAMBLASTER [62]. HaplotypeCaller [54] and Strelka2 [63] were used to detect base substitutions and short indels, and Delly [64] was employed to identify genomic rearrangements. The breakpoints of selected genomic rearrangements were visually inspected and confirmed using the Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV).

5. Conclusions

We investigated the genomic landscape of 23 unrelated Korean families with typical or atypical BOR/BO syndrome. By integrating WGS into our diagnostic pipeline, we detected an array of structural variations, including complex genomic rearrangements and cryptic inversions, ultimately increasing the diagnostic yield to 91%. This comprehensive analytical framework has significantly enhanced the molecular diagnostic yield of BOR/BO syndrome compared to previous studies. Our findings suggest the clinical utility of WGS in diagnosing rare diseases, including those with BOR/BO syndrome.

Supplementary Materials

The supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms25158149/s1.

Author Contributions

S.H.C. and S.-Y.L. designed the study, collected data, and wrote the paper; S.H.J. and S-L. analyzed exome sequencing and whole-genome sequencing data; W.H.C. reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported and funded by SNUH Kun-hee Lee Child Cancer & Rare Disease Project, Republic of Korea (FP-2022-00001-004 to S.-Y.L.), National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) and funded by the Ministry of Education (grant number: 2022R1C1C1003147 to S.-Y.L.), SNU Medicine grant (Sang-Yeon Lee, basic and clinic cooperation research grant No. 800-20230428), SNUH Research Fund (04-2022-4010 to S.-Y.L. and 04-2022-3070 to S.-Y.L.).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the institutional review board of the Clinical Research Institute.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in this study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Materials, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank SNUH Kun-hee Lee Child Cancer & Rare Disease Project for funding our research.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

References

  1. Chen, A.; Francis, M.; Ni, L.; Cremers, C.W.; Kimberling, W.J.; Sato, Y.; Phelps, P.D.; Bellman, S.C.; Wagner, M.J.; Pembrey, M.; et al. Phenotypic manifestations of branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1995, 58, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kochhar, A.; Fischer, S.M.; Kimberling, W.J.; Smith, R.J. Branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2007, 143A, 1671–1678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vincent, C.; Kalatzis, V.; Abdelhak, S.; Chaib, H.; Compain, S.; Helias, J.; Vaneecloo, F.M.; Petit, C. BOR and BO syndromes are allelic defects of EYA1. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 1997, 5, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ruf, R.G.; Berkman, J.; Wolf, M.T.; Nurnberg, P.; Gattas, M.; Ruf, E.M.; Hyland, V.; Kromberg, J.; Glass, I.; Macmillan, J.; et al. A gene locus for branchio-otic syndrome maps to chromosome 14q21.3-q24.3. J. Med. Genet. 2003, 40, 515–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Masuda, M.; Kanno, A.; Nara, K.; Mutai, H.; Morisada, N.; Iijima, K.; Morimoto, N.; Nakano, A.; Sugiuchi, T.; Okamoto, Y.; et al. Phenotype-genotype correlation in patients with typical and atypical branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Abdelhak, S.; Kalatzis, V.; Heilig, R.; Compain, S.; Samson, D.; Vincent, C.; Weil, D.; Cruaud, C.; Sahly, I.; Leibovici, M.; et al. A human homologue of the Drosophila eyes absent gene underlies branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome and identifies a novel gene family. Nat. Genet. 1997, 15, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Fraser, F.C.; Sproule, J.R.; Halal, F. Frequency of the branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome in children with profound hearing loss. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1980, 7, 341–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Fraser, F.C.; Ling, D.; Clogg, D.; Nogrady, B. Genetic aspects of the BOR syndrome--branchial fistulas, ear pits, hearing loss, and renal anomalies. Am. J. Med. Genet. 1978, 2, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fukuda, S.; Kuroda, T.; Chida, E.; Shimizu, R.; Usami, S.; Koda, E.; Abe, S.; Namba, A.; 0 Kitamura, K.; Inuyama, Y. A family affected by branchio-oto syndrome with EYA1 mutations. Auris Nasus Larynx 2001, 28, S7–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, E.H.; Menezes, M.; Meyer, N.C.; Cucci, R.A.; Vervoort, V.S.; Schwartz, C.E.; Smith, R.J. Branchio-oto-renal syndrome: The mutation spectrum in EYA1 and its phenotypic consequences. Hum. Mutat. 2004, 23, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Feng, H.; Xu, H.; Chen, B.; Sun, S.; Zhai, R.; Zeng, B.; Tang, W.; Lu, W. Genetic and Phenotypic Variability in Chinese Patients With Branchio-Oto-Renal or Branchio-Oto Syndrome. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 765433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ruf, R.G.; Xu, P.X.; Silvius, D.; Otto, E.A.; Beekmann, F.; Muerb, U.T.; Kumar, S.; Neuhaus, T.J.; Kemper, M.J.; Raymond, R.M., Jr.; et al. SIX1 mutations cause branchio-oto-renal syndrome by disruption of EYA1-SIX1-DNA complexes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 8090–8095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hoskins, B.E.; Cramer, C.H.; Silvius, D.; Zou, D.; Raymond, R.M.; Orten, D.J.; Kimberling, W.J.; Smith, R.J.; Weil, D.; Petit, C.; et al. Transcription factor SIX5 is mutated in patients with branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 80, 800–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ohto, H.; Kamada, S.; Tago, K.; Tominaga, S.I.; Ozaki, H.; Sato, S.; Kawakami, K. Cooperation of six and eya in activation of their target genes through nuclear translocation of Eya. Mol. Cell Biol. 1999, 19, 6815–6824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lee, S.; Yun, Y.; Cha, J.H.; Han, J.H.; Lee, D.H.; Song, J.J.; Park, M.K.; Lee, J.H.; Oh, S.H.; Choi, B.Y.; et al. Phenotypic and molecular basis of SIX1 variants linked to non-syndromic deafness and atypical branchio-otic syndrome in South Korea. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 11776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, Y.G.; Sun, S.P.; Qiu, Y.L.; Xing, Q.H.; Lu, W. A novel mutation in EYA1 in a Chinese family with Branchio-oto-renal syndrome. BMC Med. Genet. 2018, 19, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Krug, P.; Moriniere, V.; Marlin, S.; Koubi, V.; Gabriel, H.D.; Colin, E.; Bonneau, D.; Salomon, R.; Antignac, C.; Heidet, L. Mutation screening of the EYA1, SIX1, and SIX5 genes in a large cohort of patients harboring branchio-oto-renal syndrome calls into question the pathogenic role of SIX5 mutations. Hum. Mutat. 2011, 32, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Jamuar, S.S.; Tan, E.C. Clinical application of next-generation sequencing for Mendelian diseases. Hum. Genom. 2015, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bick, D.; Jones, M.; Taylor, S.L.; Taft, R.J.; Belmont, J. Case for genome sequencing in infants and children with rare, undiagnosed or genetic diseases. J. Med. Genet. 2019, 56, 783–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Choy, K.W. Next-Generation Sequencing to Diagnose Suspected Genetic Disorders. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 200–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pajusalu, S.; Kahre, T.; Roomere, H.; Murumets, U.; Roht, L.; Simenson, K.; Reimand, T.; Ounap, K. Large gene panel sequencing in clinical diagnostics-results from 501 consecutive cases. Clin. Genet. 2018, 93, 78–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Aspromonte, M.C.; Bellini, M.; Gasparini, A.; Carraro, M.; Bettella, E.; Polli, R.; Cesca, F.; Bigoni, S.; Boni, S.; Carlet, O.; et al. Characterization of intellectual disability and autism comorbidity through gene panel sequencing. Hum. Mutat. 2020, 41, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pennisi, E. Upstart DNA sequencers could be a ‘game changer’. Science 2022, 376, 1257–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Brlek, P.; Bulic, L.; Bracic, M.; Projic, P.; Skaro, V.; Shah, N.; Shah, P.; Primorac, D. Implementing Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) in Clinical Practice: Advantages, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. Cells 2024, 13, 504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Smith, R.J.H. Branchiootorenal Spectrum Disorder. In GeneReviews((R)); Adam, M.P., Feldman, J., Mirzaa, G.M., Pagon, R.A., Wallace, S.E., Bean, L.J.H., Gripp, K.W., Amemiya, A., Eds.; University of Washington: Seattle, WA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ideura, M.; Nishio, S.Y.; Moteki, H.; Takumi, Y.; Miyagawa, M.; Sato, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Ohyama, K.; Oda, K.; Matsui, T.; et al. Comprehensive analysis of syndromic hearing loss patients in Japan. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Orten, D.J.; Fischer, S.M.; Sorensen, J.L.; Radhakrishna, U.; Cremers, C.W.; Marres, H.A.; Van Camp, G.; Welch, K.O.; Smith, R.J.; Kimberling, W.J. Branchio-oto-renal syndrome (BOR): Novel mutations in the EYA1 gene, and a review of the mutational genetics of BOR. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29, 537–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Richards, S.; Aziz, N.; Bale, S.; Bick, D.; Das, S.; Gastier-Foster, J.; Grody, W.W.; Hegde, M.; Lyon, E.; Spector, E.; et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: A joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. 2015, 17, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sirmaci, A.; Spiliopoulos, M.; Brancati, F.; Powell, E.; Duman, D.; Abrams, A.; Bademci, G.; Agolini, E.; Guo, S.; Konuk, B.; et al. Mutations in ANKRD11 cause KBG syndrome, characterized by intellectual disability, skeletal malformations, and macrodontia. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2011, 89, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wojcik, M.H.; Lemire, G.; Berger, E.; Zaki, M.S.; Wissmann, M.; Win, W.; White, S.M.; Weisburd, B.; Wieczorek, D.; Waddell, L.B.; et al. Genome Sequencing for Diagnosing Rare Diseases. N. Engl. J. Med. 2024, 390, 1985–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schobers, G.; Derks, R.; den Ouden, A.; Swinkels, H.; van Reeuwijk, J.; Bosgoed, E.; Lugtenberg, D.; Sun, S.M.; Corominas Galbany, J.; Weiss, M.; et al. Genome sequencing as a generic diagnostic strategy for rare disease. Genome Med. 2024, 16, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rickard, S.; Boxer, M.; Trompeter, R.; Bitner-Glindzicz, M. Importance of clinical evaluation and molecular testing in the branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome and overlapping phenotypes. J. Med. Genet. 2000, 37, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kochhar, A.; Orten, D.J.; Sorensen, J.L.; Fischer, S.M.; Cremers, C.W.; Kimberling, W.J.; Smith, R.J. SIX1 mutation screening in 247 branchio-oto-renal syndrome families: A recurrent missense mutation associated with BOR. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Vervoort, V.S.; Smith, R.J.; O’Brien, J.; Schroer, R.; Abbott, A.; Stevenson, R.E.; Schwartz, C.E. Genomic rearrangements of EYA1 account for a large fraction of families with BOR syndrome. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2002, 10, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chen, X.; Wang, J.; Mitchell, E.; Guo, J.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Hodge, J.C.; Shen, Y. Recurrent 8q13.2-13.3 microdeletions associated with branchio-oto-renal syndrome are mediated by human endogenous retroviral (HERV) sequence blocks. BMC Med. Genet. 2014, 15, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Sanchez-Valle, A.; Wang, X.; Potocki, L.; Xia, Z.; Kang, S.H.; Carlin, M.E.; Michel, D.; Williams, P.; Cabrera-Meza, G.; Brundage, E.K.; et al. HERV-mediated genomic rearrangement of EYA1 in an individual with branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2010, 152A, 2854–2860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Sanggaard, K.M.; Rendtorff, N.D.; Kjaer, K.W.; Eiberg, H.; Johnsen, T.; Gimsing, S.; Dyrmose, J.; Nielsen, K.O.; Lage, K.; Tranebjaerg, L. Branchio-oto-renal syndrome: Detection of EYA1 and SIX1 mutations in five out of six Danish families by combining linkage, MLPA and sequencing analyses. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 15, 1121–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Song, M.H.; Kwon, T.J.; Kim, H.R.; Jeon, J.H.; Baek, J.I.; Lee, W.S.; Kim, U.K.; Choi, J.Y. Mutational analysis of EYA1, SIX1 and SIX5 genes and strategies for management of hearing loss in patients with BOR/BO syndrome. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Abdelhak, S.; Kalatzis, V.; Heilig, R.; Compain, S.; Samson, D.; Vincent, C.; Levi-Acobas, F.; Cruaud, C.; Le Merrer, M.; Mathieu, M.; et al. Clustering of mutations responsible for branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome in the eyes absent homologous region (eyaHR) of EYA1. Hum. Mol. Genet. 1997, 6, 2247–2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Okada, M.; Fujimaru, R.; Morimoto, N.; Satomura, K.; Kaku, Y.; Tsuzuki, K.; Nozu, K.; Okuyama, T.; Iijima, K. EYA1 and SIX1 gene mutations in Japanese patients with branchio-oto-renal (BOR) syndrome and related conditions. Pediatr. Nephrol. 2006, 21, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stockley, T.L.; Mendoza-Londono, R.; Propst, E.J.; Sodhi, S.; Dupuis, L.; Papsin, B.C. A recurrent EYA1 mutation causing alternative RNA splicing in branchio-oto-renal syndrome: Implications for molecular diagnostics and disease mechanism. Am. J. Med. Genet. A 2009, 149A, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, S.H.; Wu, C.C.; Lu, Y.C.; Lin, Y.H.; Su, Y.N.; Hwu, W.L.; Yu, I.S.; Hsu, C.J. Mutation screening of the EYA1, SIX1, and SIX5 genes in an East Asian cohort with branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Laryngoscope 2012, 122, 1130–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brophy, P.D.; Alasti, F.; Darbro, B.W.; Clarke, J.; Nishimura, C.; Cobb, B.; Smith, R.J.; Manak, J.R. Genome-wide copy number variation analysis of a Branchio-oto-renal syndrome cohort identifies a recombination hotspot and implicates new candidate genes. Hum. Genet. 2013, 132, 1339–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Klingbeil, K.D.; Greenland, C.M.; Arslan, S.; Llamos Paneque, A.; Gurkan, H.; Demir Ulusal, S.; Maroofian, R.; Carrera-Gonzalez, A.; Montufar-Armendariz, S.; Paredes, R.; et al. Novel EYA1 variants causing Branchio-oto-renal syndrome. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2017, 98, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Unzaki, A.; Morisada, N.; Nozu, K.; Ye, M.J.; Ito, S.; Matsunaga, T.; Ishikura, K.; Ina, S.; Nagatani, K.; Okamoto, T.; et al. Clinically diverse phenotypes and genotypes of patients with branchio-oto-renal syndrome. J. Hum. Genet. 2018, 63, 647–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Bi, Q.; Huang, S.; Wang, H.; Gao, X.; Ma, M.; Han, M.; Lu, S.; Kang, D.; Nourbakhsh, A.; Yan, D.; et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for hereditary hearing loss in Chinese population. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2023, 40, 1721–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yi, H.; Yun, Y.; Choi, W.H.; Hwang, H.Y.; Cha, J.H.; Seok, H.; Song, J.J.; Lee, J.H.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, D. CRISPR-based editing strategies to rectify EYA1 complex genomic rearrangement linked to haploinsufficiency. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids 2024, 35, 102199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yun, Y.; Lee, S.Y. Updates on Genetic Hearing Loss: From Diagnosis to Targeted Therapies. J. Audiol. Otol. 2024, 28, 88–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Engels, S.; Kohlhase, J.; McGaughran, J. A SALL1 mutation causes a branchio-oto-renal syndrome-like phenotype. J. Med. Genet. 2000, 37, 458–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Correa-Cerro, L.S.; Kennerknecht, I.; Just, W.; Vogel, W.; Muller, D. The gene for branchio-oculo-facial syndrome does not colocalize to the EYA1-4 genes. J. Med. Genet. 2000, 37, 620–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Trummer, T.; Muller, D.; Schulze, A.; Vogel, W.; Just, W. Branchio-oculo-facial syndrome and branchio-otic/branchio-oto-renal syndromes are distinct entities. J. Med. Genet. 2002, 39, 71–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lin, A.E.; Semina, E.V.; Daack-Hirsch, S.; Roeder, E.R.; Curry, C.J.; Rosenbaum, K.; Weaver, D.D.; Murray, J.C. Exclusion of the branchio-oto-renal syndrome locus (EYA1) from patients with branchio-oculo-facial syndrome. Am. J. Med. Genet. 2000, 91, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Butcher, D.T.; Cytrynbaum, C.; Turinsky, A.L.; Siu, M.T.; Inbar-Feigenberg, M.; Mendoza-Londono, R.; Chitayat, D.; Walker, S.; Machado, J.; Caluseriu, O.; et al. CHARGE and Kabuki Syndromes: Gene-Specific DNA Methylation Signatures Identify Epigenetic Mechanisms Linking These Clinically Overlapping Conditions. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2017, 100, 773–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Van der Auwera, G.A.; Carneiro, M.O.; Hartl, C.; Poplin, R.; Del Angel, G.; Levy-Moonshine, A.; Jordan, T.; Shakir, K.; Roazen, D.; Thibault, J.; et al. From FastQ data to high confidence variant calls: The Genome Analysis Toolkit best practices pipeline. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2013, 43, 11.10.1–11.10.33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Lee, S.Y.; Joo, K.; Oh, J.; Han, J.H.; Park, H.R.; Lee, S.; Oh, D.Y.; Woo, S.J.; Choi, B.Y. Severe or Profound Sensorineural Hearing Loss Caused by Novel USH2A Variants in Korea: Potential Genotype-Phenotype Correlation. Clin. Exp. Otorhinolaryngol. 2020, 13, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lee, S.Y.; Kim, M.Y.; Han, J.H.; Park, S.S.; Yun, Y.; Jee, S.C.; Han, J.J.; Lee, J.H.; Seok, H.; Choi, B.Y. Ramifications of POU4F3 variants associated with autosomal dominant hearing loss in various molecular aspects. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 12584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jo, H.D.; Han, J.H.; Lee, S.M.; Choi, D.H.; Lee, S.Y.; Choi, B.Y. Genetic Load of Alternations of Transcription Factor Genes in Non-Syndromic Deafness and the Associated Clinical Phenotypes: Experience from Two Tertiary Referral Centers. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Cho, S.H.; Yun, Y.; Lee, D.H.; Cha, J.H.; Lee, S.M.; Lee, J.; Suh, M.H.; Lee, J.H.; Oh, S.H.; Park, M.K.; et al. Novel autosomal dominant TMC1 variants linked to hearing loss: Insight into protein-lipid interactions. BMC Med. Genom. 2023, 16, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Oza, A.M.; DiStefano, M.T.; Hemphill, S.E.; Cushman, B.J.; Grant, A.R.; Siegert, R.K.; Shen, J.; Chapin, A.; Boczek, N.J.; Schimmenti, L.A.; et al. Expert specification of the ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines for genetic hearing loss. Hum. Mutat. 2018, 39, 1593–1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Talevich, E.; Shain, A.H.; Botton, T.; Bastian, B.C. CNVkit: Genome-Wide Copy Number Detection and Visualization from Targeted DNA Sequencing. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2016, 12, e1004873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Krumm, N.; Sudmant, P.H.; Ko, A.; O’Roak, B.J.; Malig, M.; Coe, B.P.; Project, N.E.S.; Quinlan, A.R.; Nickerson, D.A.; Eichler, E.E. Copy number variation detection and genotyping from exome sequence data. Genome Res. 2012, 22, 1525–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Faust, G.G.; Hall, I.M. SAMBLASTER: Fast duplicate marking and structural variant read extraction. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2503–2505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Kim, S.; Scheffler, K.; Halpern, A.L.; Bekritsky, M.A.; Noh, E.; Kallberg, M.; Chen, X.; Kim, Y.; Beyter, D.; Krusche, P.; et al. Strelka2: Fast and accurate calling of germline and somatic variants. Nat. Methods 2018, 15, 591–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Rausch, T.; Zichner, T.; Schlattl, A.; Stutz, A.M.; Benes, V.; Korbel, J.O. DELLY: Structural variant discovery by integrated paired-end and split-read analysis. Bioinformatics 2012, 28, i333–i339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijms 25 08149 g001
Figure 1. Cumulative molecular diagnostic yield of stepwise genomic pipeline. Targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing were initially utilized to identify causative variants (Step 1). For patients who remained undiagnosed after targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing, exome sequencing-based CNV screening coupled with MLPA (Step 2) was applied. Finally, WGS (Step 3) was applied to patients who remained genetically undiagnosed after Step 2.
Figure 1. Cumulative molecular diagnostic yield of stepwise genomic pipeline. Targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing were initially utilized to identify causative variants (Step 1). For patients who remained undiagnosed after targeted panel sequencing and exome sequencing, exome sequencing-based CNV screening coupled with MLPA (Step 2) was applied. Finally, WGS (Step 3) was applied to patients who remained genetically undiagnosed after Step 2.
Ijms 25 08149 g001
Ijms 25 08149 g002
Figure 2. SVs landscape of BOR/BO syndrome from literature review of BOR/BO syndrome cohort studies and this study. SVs accounted for 8.7% of all mutations reported in the cohort studies. Most of the SVs are deletions of EYA1 (89% of SVs), while complex genomic rearrangement (4% of SVs) and inversion of EYA1 (4% of SVs) are reported in a small proportion of total SVs.
Figure 2. SVs landscape of BOR/BO syndrome from literature review of BOR/BO syndrome cohort studies and this study. SVs accounted for 8.7% of all mutations reported in the cohort studies. Most of the SVs are deletions of EYA1 (89% of SVs), while complex genomic rearrangement (4% of SVs) and inversion of EYA1 (4% of SVs) are reported in a small proportion of total SVs.
Ijms 25 08149 g002
Table 1. Cohort description, genotypes, and clinical phenotypes in BOR/BO syndrome.
Table 1. Cohort description, genotypes, and clinical phenotypes in BOR/BO syndrome.
FamilySex/AgeDiagnostic Approach *GeneVariant [NM/NP No.]Zygosity/
Inheritance		ACMG
Classification #		Affected DomainBranchial AnomaliesPreauricular PitsHearing LossRenal
Anomalies		EAC
Anomalies		Middle Ear
Anomalies		Inner Ear
Anomalies		Typical/
Atypical
BOR01F/15WESEYA1c.1319G>A;p.Arg440Gln
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/
de novo		PathogenicEDOOMHLOXOOTypical
BOR02F/22WGSEYA1Complex genomic rearrangement
g.[71211857_712282326inv;712111857_71215145del]		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOOMHLXXOOTypical
F/56WGSEYA1Complex genomic rearrangement
g.[71211857_712282326inv;712111857_71215145del]		Het/ADPathogenicN/DXOMHLXOOXAtypical
M/32WGSEYA1Complex genomic rearrangement
g.[71211857_712282326inv;712111857_71215145del]		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOOSNHLOXXOTypical
F/29WGSEYA1Complex genomic rearrangement
g.[71211857_712282326inv;712111857_71215145del]		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOOSNHLXXXOTypical
BOR03M/31WESEYA1c.1623_1626dup:p.Gln543AsnfsTer90
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/
de novo		PathogenicEDOOSNHLXXXOTypical
BOR04F/0WESEYA1c.1598-2A>C:p.?
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOOMHLXOOXTypical
F/30WESEYA1c.1598-2A>C:p.?
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOOMHLXXOXTypical
BOR05F/4WGSEYA1Cryptic inversion
c.49-7047[NC_000008.11:g.71448124]inv		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOOSNHLXOXOTypical
F/33WGSEYA1Cryptic inversion
c.49-7047[NC_000008.11:g.71448124]inv		Het/ADPathogenicN/DOXMHLXXOXTypical
BOR06F/8WESEYA1c.1081C>T:p.Arg361Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADPathogenicEDOOMHLXOOOTypical
M/8WESEYA1c.1081C>T:p.Arg361Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADPathogenicEDOOMHLXXOOTypical
BOR07M/17WESEYA1c.1220G>A:p.Arg407Gln
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het /
de novo		PathogenicEDOOMHLOOOOTypical
BOR08M/6WESEYA1c.1276G>A:p.Gly426Ser
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLOOOXTypical
M/9WESEYA1c.1276G>A:p.Gly426Ser
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOXXXXXAtypical
BOR09F/12MLPAEYA1DeletionHet/ADPathogenicN/DOOMHLXOOOTypical
BOR10M/7WESEYA1c.1081C>T:p.Arg361Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADPathogenicEDXOMHLOOOOTypical
BOR11F/7WESEYA1c.1715G>A:p.Trp572Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOOTypical
F/12WESEYA1c.1715G>A:p.Trp572Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOXTypical
BOR12M/31WESEYA1c.802C>T:p.Gln268Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOXTypical
M/28WESEYA1c.802C>T:p.Gln268Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOXTypical
M/64WESEYA1c.802C>T:p.Gln268Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOSNHLXXXOTypical
F/56WESEYA1c.802C>T:p.Gln268Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOOTypical
F/49WESEYA1c.802C>T:p.Gln268Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOXTypical
F/20WESEYA1c.802C>T:p.Gln268Ter
[NM_000503.6/NP_000494.2]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicEDOOMHLXXOXTypical
BOR13F/31WESSIX1c.501G>C:p.Gln167His
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDOXSNHLXXXXAtypical
F/60WESSIX1c.501G>C:p.Gln167His
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDXXSNHLXXXXAtypical
F/30WESSIX1c.501G>C:p.Gln167His
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDXXSNHLXXXXAtypical
BOR14F/10WESSIX1c.386_391del:p.Tyr129_Cys130del
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADPathogenicHDXOSNHLXXXXAtypical
F/40WESSIX1c.386_391del:p.Tyr129_Cys130del
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADPathogenicHDXOSNHLXXXXAtypical
BOR15F/11WESSIX1c.397_399del:p.Glu133del
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/
de novo		Likely PathogenicHDXOSNHLXXXOAtypical
BOR16M/76WESSIX1c.21del:p.Phe7LeufsTer82
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADPathogenicSDXOSNHLXXXXAtypical
BOR17M/10WESSIX1c.386A>C:p.Tyr129Ser
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDXXSNHLXXXXAtypical
M/44WESSIX1c.386A>C:p.Tyr129Ser
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDXXMHLXXOXAtypical
BOR18M/22WESSIX1c.176A>C:p.His59Pro
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicSDXOSNHLXXXXAtypical
BOR19M/16WESSIX1c.513G>T:p.Trp171Cys
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/
de novo		PathogenicHDOOCHLXXXXTypical
BOR20M/1WESSIX1c.376_378del:p.Glu126del
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDXOSNHLXXXXAtypical
M/1WESSIX1c.376_378del:p.Glu126del
[NM_005982.4/NP_005973.1]		Het/ADLikely PathogenicHDXXSNHLXXXXAtypical
BOR21F/1WESANKRD11c.2409_2412del:p.Glu805ArgfsTer57
[NM_013275.6/NP_037407.4]		Het/ADPathogenicLinker regionOOSNHLXXXXTypical
BOR22M/13WGSNegative----OOMHLOXOOTypical
BOR23F/51WESNegative----XOMHLXXOXN/D
Abbreviations: Het, heterozygote; AD, autosomal dominant; de novo, de novo confirmed; SNHL, sensorineural hearing loss; MHL, mixed hearing loss; ED, EYA domain; HD, homeodomain; SD, SIX domain; N/D, not determined; WES, whole-exome sequencing; WGS, whole-genome sequencing. * Sequencing technology that identifies the causative variants. # ACMG/AMP 2015 guideline (http://wintervar.wglab.org/; accessed on 1 May 2024).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cho, S.H.; Jeong, S.H.; Choi, W.H.; Lee, S.-Y. Genomic Landscape of Branchio-Oto-Renal Syndrome through Whole-Genome Sequencing: A Single Rare Disease Center Experience in South Korea. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 8149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25158149

AMA Style

Cho SH, Jeong SH, Choi WH, Lee S-Y. Genomic Landscape of Branchio-Oto-Renal Syndrome through Whole-Genome Sequencing: A Single Rare Disease Center Experience in South Korea. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024; 25(15):8149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25158149

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cho, Sung Ho, Sung Ho Jeong, Won Hoon Choi, and Sang-Yeon Lee. 2024. "Genomic Landscape of Branchio-Oto-Renal Syndrome through Whole-Genome Sequencing: A Single Rare Disease Center Experience in South Korea" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 25, no. 15: 8149. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25158149

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop