Next-Generation Sequencing in Genetic Studies of Psychiatric Disorders

2018 ◽  
pp. 184-194
Author(s):  
Shweta Ramdas ◽  
Jun Z. Li

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies make it possible to efficiently detect DNA variants in either entire genomes or any subsets of the genome, and have dramatically enhanced our ability to search for genetic risk factors of complex psychiatric diseases. While genotyping-based association studies focus on common variants that track extended genomic segments, NGS provides unbiased identification of both common and rare variants, including those that are functionally important but appear in very few families or sporadic cases. Thus NGS directly highlights plausible causal variants, even if such variants are extremely heterogeneous in the population. Meanwhile, such heterogeneity requires new analytical approaches that can aggregate rare variant burden over predefined functional unit such as a gene or a segment of non-coding region with presumed function. Rapid application of NGS technologies also underscored other limits in psychiatric genetics research, including the need for detailed phenotyping and multi-scale integration of diverse data types.

Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 4359-4359
Author(s):  
Koji Sasaki ◽  
Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna ◽  
Guillermo Montalban-Bravo ◽  
Rita Assi ◽  
Kiran Naqvi ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Clearance of detected somatic mutations at complete response by next-generation sequencing is a prognostic marker for survival in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, the impact of allelic burden and persistence of clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP)-associated mutations on survival remains unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the prognostic impact of allelic burden of CHIP mutations at diagnosis, and their persistence within 6 months of therapy. Methods: From February 1, 2012 to May 26, 2016, we reviewed 562 patients with newly diagnosed AML. Next-generation sequencing was performed on the bone marrow samples to detect the presence of CHIP-associated mutations defined as DNMT3A, TET2, ASXL1, JAK2 and TP53. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time period from the diagnosis of AML to the date of last follow-up or death. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression (MVA) were performed to identify prognostic factors for OS with p value cutoff of 0.020 for the selection of variables for MVA. Landmark analysis at 6 months was performed for the evaluation of the impact of clearance of CHIP, FLT3-ITD, FLT3D835, and NPM1 mutations. Results: We identified 378 patients (74%) with AML with CHIP mutations; 134 patients (26%) with AML without CHIP mutations. The overall median follow-up of 23 months (range, 0.1-49.0). The median age at diagnosis was 70 years (range, 17-92) and 66 years (range, 20-87) in CHIP AML and non-CHIP AML, respectively (p =0.001). Of 371 patients and 127 patients evaluable for cytogenetic in CHIP AML and non-CHIP AML, 124 (33%) and 25 patients (20%) had complex karyotype, respectively (p= 0.004). Of 378 patients with CHIP AML, 183 patients (48%) had TET2 mutations; 113 (30%), TP53; 110 (29%), ASXL1; 109 (29%), DNMT3A; JAK2, 46 (12%). Of 378 patients, single CHIP mutations was observed in 225 patients (60%); double, 33 (9%); triple, 28 (7%); quadruple, 1 (0%). Concurrent FLT3-ITD mutations was detected in 47 patients (13%) and 12 patients (9%) in CHIP AML and non-CHIP AML, respectively (p= 0.287); FLT3-D835, 22 (6%) and 8 (6%), respectively (p= 0.932); NPM1 mutations, 62 (17%) and 13 (10%), respectively (p= 0.057). Of 183 patients with TET2-mutated AML, the median TET2 variant allele frequency (VAF) was 42.9% (range, 2.26-95.32); of 113 with TP53-mutated AML, the median TP53 VAF, 45.9% (range, 1.15-93.74); of 109 with ASXL1-mutated AML, the median ASXL1 VAF was 34.5% (range, 1.17-58.62); of 109 with DNMT3A-mutated AML, the median DNMT3A VAF was 41.8% (range, 1.02-91.66); of 46 with JAK2-mutated AML, the median JAK2 VAF was 54.4% (range, 1.49-98.52). Overall, the median OS was 12 months and 11 months in CHIP AML and non-CHIP AML, respectively (p= 0.564); 16 months and 5 months in TET2-mutated AML and non-TET2-mutated AML, respectively (p <0.001); 4 months and 13 months in TP53-mutated and non-TP53-mutated AML, respectively (p< 0.001); 17 months and 11 months in DNMT3A-mutated and non-DNMT3A-mutated AML, respectively (p= 0.072); 16 months and 11 months in ASXL1-mutated AML and non-ASXL1-mutated AML, respectively (p= 0.067); 11 months and 12 months in JAK2-murated and non-JAK2-mutated AML, respectively (p= 0.123). The presence and number of CHIP mutations were not a prognostic factor for OS by univariate analysis (p=0.565; hazard ratio [HR], 0.929; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.722-1.194: p= 0.408; hazard ratio, 1.058; 95% confidence interval, 0.926-1.208, respectively). MVA Cox regression identified age (p< 0.001; HR, 1.036; 95% CI, 1.024-1.048), TP53 VAF (p= 0.007; HR, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.002-1.016), NPM1 VAF (p=0.006; HR, 0.980; 95% CI, 0.967-0.994), and complex karyotype (p<0.001; HR, 1.869; 95% CI, 1.332-2.622) as independent prognostic factors for OS. Of 33 patients with CHIP AML who were evaluated for the clearance of VAF by next generation sequencing , landmark analysis at 6 months showed median OS of not reached and 20.3 months in patients with and without CHIP-mutation clearance, respectively (p=0.310). Conclusion: The VAF of TP53 and NPM1 mutations by next generation sequencing can further stratify patients with newly diagnosed AML. Approximately, each increment of TP53 and NPM1 VAF by 1% is independently associated with 1% higher risk of death, and 2% lower risk of death, respectively. The presence of CHIP mutations except TP53 does not affect outcome. Disclosures Sasaki: Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria. Short:Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Ravandi:Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Sunesis: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Macrogenix: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Abbvie: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria; Xencor: Research Funding; Orsenix: Honoraria; Sunesis: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria. Kadia:BMS: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. DiNardo:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Celgene: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Cortes:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding.


2017 ◽  
pp. 21-52
Author(s):  
Jane M. Maguire ◽  
Elizabeth G. Holliday ◽  
Christopher J. Oldmeadow ◽  
John Attia ◽  
Matthew P. A. Henderson ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1099-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Luo ◽  
E. Boerwinkle ◽  
M. Xiong

2018 ◽  
Vol 244 (8) ◽  
pp. 1473-1485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sina-Elisabeth Ben Ali ◽  
Alexandra Schamann ◽  
Stefanie Dobrovolny ◽  
Alexander Indra ◽  
Sarah Zanon Agapito-Tenfen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
pp. 14-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel Diebold ◽  
Ulrike Schön ◽  
Rita Horvath ◽  
Oliver Schwartz ◽  
Elke Holinski-Feder ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document