Methods and systems for detection of abnormal karyotypes

Description

BACKGROUND

Accurate medical interpretation of human genomic samples requires knowledge of the underlying karyotype. Methods for identifying aberrant karyotypes, such as copy number variants (CNVs), include using DNA microarrays in comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), e.g., using fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), clone and PCR-product assays, oligonucleotide arrays, genotyping arrays (Carter N P, Nature Genetics 2007; 39 S16-21)). However, a disadvantage of array technologies is that it can be difficult to define (call) a putative CNV.

Methods for detecting chromosomal abnormalities from next-generation sequencing data are sparse. Certain next-generation sequencing whole-genome copy number variant methods have been utilized, such as read-pair, split-read, read-depth and assembly based methods (Pirooznia, et al., Front. Genet. 2015; 6; 138). However, existing applications have focused on the analysis of very light-skim whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data from maternal plasma samples to detect fractions of aneuploid cell-free fetal DNA for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT). Next-generation sequencing has been explored to some extent in cancer genomics, but these analyses generally are based on SNP arrays given the depth of coverage necessary to accurately measure the degree of clonal mosaicism in somatic chromosomal abnormalities.

No existing method has been developed for the purpose of detecting abnormal karyotypes from population-scale whole-exome sequencing (WES) data. These and other shortcomings are addressed in the present disclosure.

SUMMARY

It is to be understood that both the following general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory only and are not restrictive. Methods and systems for detecting abnormal karyotypes are disclosed. An example method can comprise determining read coverage data, allele balance distributions of heterozygous SNPs, and chromosomal segments where heterozygosity is not observed, for each chromosome in a plurality of samples, wherein each chromosome comprises a plurality of genomic regions, determining expected read coverage data for each chromosome in the plurality of samples, determining a deviation between the read coverage data and the expected read coverage data for at least one chromosome in the plurality of samples, determining a deviation in the allele balance distribution from an expected ratio of 1:1 for a plurality of bi-allelic SNPs for at least one chromosome in a plurality of samples, determining whether the deviation occurs over the entire chromosome or only a portion of the identified chromosome, using the read coverage and allele balance data in complement to further refine and validate identified deviations for at least one chromosome in a plurality of samples, and identifying the at least one chromosome as an abnormal karyotype.

Additional advantages will be set forth in part in the description which follows or may be learned by practice. The advantages will be realized and attained by means of the elements and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute a part of this specification, illustrate embodiments and together with the description, serve to explain the principles of the methods and systems:

FIG. 1 is flowchart illustrating an example abnormal karyotype detection method;

FIG. 2 is a graph illustrating an example linear regression model;

FIG. 3 is a graph illustrating abnormal karyotypes exhibiting large residuals;

FIG. 4 is another flowchart illustrating an example abnormal karyotype detection method;

FIG. 5 shows a graph illustrating the relationship of GC content and coverage;

FIG. 6 is a graph illustrating identified abnormal karyotypes and outliers;

FIGS. 7A, 7B, 7C, 7D, 7E, and 7F are allele balance plots showing anomalies on chromosomes 9, 13 and 20 for a sample. The subplot number is the chromosome number. The shaded bar (701) denotes the normal range of variability expected for a heterozygous SNP allele balance of 0.5. The solid line (702) denotes the whole chromosome median allele balance. The dashed line (703) denotes the local median allele balance in an approximately 20 SNP rolling window. The line (704) denotes runs-of-homozygosity;

FIG. 8 is a read coverage plot for the same sample as in FIGS. 7A-F;

FIGS. 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, 9E, and 9F are allele balance plots showing an anomaly on chromosome 21 in a sample and a run-of-homozygosity encompassing all of chromosome X, implying a karyotypically normal male sample having only one X chromosome. The shaded bar (901) denotes the normal range of variability expected for a heterozygous SNP allele balance of 0.5. The solid line (902) denotes the whole chromosome median allele balance. The dashed line (903) denotes the local median allele balance in an approximately 20 SNP rolling window. The line (904) denotes runs-of-homozygosity;

FIG. 10 is a read coverage plot for the same sample as in FIGS. 9A-F;

FIG. 11 is flowchart illustrating an example abnormal karyotype detection method;

FIG. 12 is an example allele balance plot of a sample on chromosome 4, in which a large run-of-homozygosity is detected (1202) that has an overlapping LocalHetAB Event (1204) due to small amounts of non-zero allele balance among homozygous SNPs in the anomalous region;

FIG. 13A is a plot of chromosome X versus chromosome Y coverage ratios for all samples and a threshold for determining male (1302) and female (1304) samples indicated by the solid line 1306. Additionally, male samples having chromosome Y duplications can be identified using a chromosome Y coverage ratio threshold (dashed line 1308);

FIG. 13B is an example plot for chromosome 21 demonstrating that the expected chromosome-wide median heterozygous SNP allele balance (ChromHetAB) increases relative to the fraction of bases covered at or above a specific read depth threshold (e.g., 50× coverage, “PCTTARGETBASES50×” QC metric); “tier” ratings can be assigned based on the significance of the deviation in the observed versus expected ChromHetAB based on the coverage metric;

FIG. 14 is a plot of the ChromHetAB value (x-axis) for all male samples on chromosome X relative to the number of SNPs included in the ChromHetAB value's calculation (putative heterozygous SNPs; y-axis). Lines indicate thresholds to distinguish male samples having duplications on chromosome X based on high, non-zero ChromHetAB values supported by a large number of SNPs;

FIG. 15 is a plot of all LocalHetAB Events, black and grey dots, (with area greater than an example threshold, vertical line) relative to the number of heterozygous SNPs included in the event (y-axis), with diagonal lines demonstrating example tier rating thresholds. Grey dots indicate events having overlapping ROH events; and

FIG. 16 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary operating environment for performing the disclosed methods.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Before the present methods and systems are disclosed and described, it is to be understood that the methods and systems are not limited to specific methods, specific components, or to particular implementations. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting.

As used in the specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an” and “the” include plural referents unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Ranges may be expressed herein as from “about” one particular value, and/or to “about” another particular value. When such a range is expressed, another embodiment includes from the one particular value and/or to the other particular value. Similarly, when values are expressed as approximations, by use of the antecedent “about,” it will be understood that the particular value forms another embodiment. It will be further understood that the endpoints of each of the ranges are significant both in relation to the other endpoint, and independently of the other endpoint.

“Optional” or “optionally” means that the subsequently described event or circumstance may or may not occur, and that the description includes instances where said event or circumstance occurs and instances where it does not.

Throughout the description and claims of this specification, the word “comprise” and variations of the word, such as “comprising” and “comprises,” means “including but not limited to,” and is not intended to exclude, for example, other components, integers or steps. “Exemplary” means “an example of” and is not intended to convey an indication of a preferred or ideal embodiment. “Such as” is not used in a restrictive sense, but for explanatory purposes.

It is understood that the disclosed method and compositions are not limited to the particular methodology, protocols, and reagents described as these may vary. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only, and is not intended to limit the scope of the present methods and system which will be limited only by the appended claims.

Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meanings as commonly understood by one of skill in the art to which the disclosed method and compositions belong. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the present method and compositions, the particularly useful methods, devices, and materials are as described. Publications cited herein and the material for which they are cited are hereby specifically incorporated by reference. Nothing herein is to be construed as an admission that the present invention is not entitled to antedate such disclosure by virtue of prior invention. No admission is made that any reference constitutes prior art. The discussion of references states what their authors assert, and applicant reserves the right to challenge the accuracy and pertinency of the cited documents. It will be clearly understood that, although a number of publications are referred to herein, such reference does not constitute an admission that any of these documents forms part of the common general knowledge in the art.

Disclosed are components that can be used to perform the disclosed methods and systems. These and other components are disclosed herein, and it is understood that when combinations, subsets, interactions, groups, etc. of these components are disclosed that while specific reference of each various individual and collective combinations and permutation of these may not be explicitly disclosed, each is specifically contemplated and described herein, for all methods and systems. This applies to all aspects of this application including, but not limited to, steps in disclosed methods. Thus, if there are a variety of additional steps that can be performed it is understood that each of these additional steps can be performed with any specific embodiment or combination of embodiments of the disclosed methods.

The present methods and systems may be understood more readily by reference to the following detailed description of preferred embodiments and the examples included therein and to the Figures and their previous and following description.

As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the methods and systems may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment, or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects. Furthermore, the methods and systems may take the form of a computer program product on a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program instructions (e.g., computer software) embodied in the storage medium. More particularly, the present methods and systems may take the form of web-implemented computer software. Any suitable computer-readable storage medium may be utilized including hard disks, CD-ROMs, optical storage devices, or magnetic storage devices.

Embodiments of the methods and systems are described below with reference to block diagrams and flowchart illustrations of methods, systems, apparatuses and computer program products. It will be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, respectively, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be loaded onto a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus create a means for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.

These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can direct a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory produce an article of manufacture including computer-readable instructions for implementing the function specified in the flowchart block or blocks. The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer or other programmable data processing apparatus to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer or other programmable apparatus to produce a computer-implemented process such that the instructions that execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide steps for implementing the functions specified in the flowchart block or blocks.

Accordingly, blocks of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations support combinations of means for performing the specified functions, combinations of steps for performing the specified functions and program instruction means for performing the specified functions. It will also be understood that each block of the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and flowchart illustrations, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based computer systems that perform the specified functions or steps, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.

In an aspect, disclosed are methods for detecting samples with abnormal karyotypes from population-scale whole-exome sequencing data, also referred to as KaryoScan. Abnormal karyotypes can be detected through read depth distributions over chromosomes, but multiple factors confound the ability to distinguish true chromosomal anomalies from noise. PCR amplification is biased by GC content and experimental conditions, often resulting in non-uniform amplification of DNA fragments across the genome. Additionally, exome capture techniques do not yield uniform target coverage. Thus, the expected coverage of any particular chromosome or chromosomal region is dependent on multiple factors, some of which are measurable and some of which are not.

The disclosed methods, example method 100 illustrated in FIG. 1, can compute a read coverage profile for individual samples relative to each chromosome at 102. To reduce bias in read coverage representative GC-content and mappability metrics can be determined for exonic regions at 104, as variation is smallest in regions with GC content close to 50% and high mappability. A robust read coverage profile r_ican be determined for each chromosome i as the sum of read depths over exomic regions with GC content within a range (e.g., 45-55%) and having mappability over a threshold. This metric, as opposed to median chromosomal tag density, allows for sub-chromosomal resolution.

Chromosomal read coverage profiles can then be normalized at 106 to represent an exome-wide ratio of read coverage for each chromosome relative to other autosomes. The exome-wide coverage ratio γ_iof chromosome i can be expressed as:

$\begin{matrix} γ_{i} = \frac{r_{i}}{\sum_{\forall j \in (A - i)} r_{j}} & (1) \end{matrix}$

where (A-i) is the set of autosomes excluding chromosome i, and γ_iis determined for all autosomes and chromosome X (chromosome Y can be considered independently). The coverage ratio of chromosome i is therefore the ratio of reads on chromosome i compared to all other autosomes.

Chromosomal abnormalities manifest in deviations of γ_ifrom expectation. However, the expected value of γ_iis not constant even between samples of normal (diploid) karyotype and is dependent upon experimental conditions. A linear regression model can be used to predict the expected value {circumflex over (γ)}_iof γ_ifor every individual on every chromosome at 108. An example of the observed (γ_i) and expected ({circumflex over (γ)}_i) values for chromosome 22 after fitting a linear regression are shown in FIG. 2. Sequencing quality control (QC) metrics from Picard that are correlated with variations in read depth can be used as covariates in this model. The QC metrics can comprise, for example, one or more of, GCDROPOUT, ATDROPOUT, MEANINSERTSIZE, ONBAITVSSELECTED, PCTPFUQREADS, PCTTARGETBASES10×, PCTTARGETBASES50×, and/or the like.

While these QC metrics can describe a substantial portion of the variation observed in read coverage, additional biases that are not measurable can be reflected in results obtained using previously known methods. These biases are correlated between chromosomes with similar exomic GC content distributions, and including γ_ivalues of similar chromosomes as additional co-variates can reduce variance to acceptable levels. In one aspect, while this is beneficial for model specificity, one drawback is that these other chromosomes themselves might be karyotypically abnormal, which could result in false positive calls on the target chromosome. An advantage provided by the method of the invention herein is that false positive calls on the target chromosome are minimized by restricting the number of covariates from other chromosomes. For example, the number of covariates from other chromosomes can be restricted to two.

Thus, a linear model can be regressed for each chromosome over the full n sample set, with:

{circumflex over (γ)}_i=f(QC metrics,γ_j,γ_k) (2)

where chromosomes j,k are defined as the two autosomes with minimal D statistics relative to the GC content distribution of chromosome i. In some aspects, gender (as defined by a chromosome Y coverage threshold) can be used as an additional covariate for chromosome X.

Detection of abnormal karyotypes can be based on detection of deviations of γ_ifrom expectation for a particular sample ({circumflex over (γ)}_i) at 110, defined by the residual. However, estimates for samples that fall on the extremes of QC metric space inherently can produce mean estimates with higher variance, such that the interpretation of raw residuals cannot be assumed uniform over all samples. At 112, the disclosed methods can Z-score normalize the residuals relative to the standard error of the mean estimate, S({circumflex over (γ)}_i), for an individual sample with covariates x (See FIG. 6):

$\begin{matrix} S ({\hat{γ}}_{i}) = S_{e} \sqrt{\frac{1}{n} + \frac{{(x - \overline{x})}^{2}}{\sum_{j = 1 \dots n} {(x_{j} - \overline{x})}^{2}}} & (3) \end{matrix}$

where S_eis the residual standard error, n is the number of samples used to fit the model, and:

$\begin{matrix} Z_{i} = \frac{(γ_{i} - {\hat{γ}}_{i})}{S ({\hat{γ}}_{i}) \sqrt{n}} & (4) \end{matrix}$

A p-value based on the Z-score can be determined for each chromosome to identify significantly large residuals at 114, representing abnormal karyotypes for chromosome i. In an aspect, p-value cutoff for p<0.05 and q<0.05 (FDR-adjusted p) can be used to identify significantly large residuals. See FIG. 3, in which the observed (γ_i) and expected ({circumflex over (γ)}_i) values after fitting a linear regression are shown. In another aspect, a p-value of up to 0.1 can be used.

Large residuals can be a result of both true abnormal karyotypes for the chromosome of interest as well as abnormal covariate values (due to either outliers in QC metric space or an abnormal karyotype on one of the covariate chromosomes). At 116 outliers can be detected due to unusual covariates by flagging samples with extreme leverage (often denoted h_i, where 1/n<h_i<1) on the linear model for each chromosome. Leverage quantifies how much a sample's x-values (covariates) influence the model. Leverage can be used to flag outliers not representing true abnormal karyotypes on chromosomes of interest. Leverage and standard error are correlated, so high-leverage values should have high (insignificant) p-values. Leverage can be reported as a function of n and p:

$\begin{matrix} h_{i} (n, p) = [\frac{1}{n} + \frac{{(x - \overline{x})}^{2}}{\sum_{j = 1 \dots n} {(x_{j} - \overline{x})}^{2}}] \cdot \frac{n}{p + 1} & (5) \end{matrix}$

where p is the number of covariates in the model. In an aspect, samples can be flagged that having h_i(n,p) values greater than a threshold. For example, the threshold can be from about 3 to about 5. This can be generally applied to ensure an optimal fit. A more conservative threshold can be used to flag the most extreme values, for example, values corresponding to the 99.5th and 99.9th percentiles (˜10 and ˜26). In some cases, it is useful to remove high leverage samples and refit the model, thereby reducing standard error for samples not having high leverage and improving (reducing) p-value estimates.

FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating an example method 400 for detecting abnormal karyotypes. At step 402, read coverage data for each chromosome in a plurality of samples can be determined. In an aspect, each chromosome can comprise a plurality of genomic regions. Determining read coverage data for each chromosome in a plurality of samples can comprise determining a sum of read depths over exomic regions with GC content within a range and a mappability score above a threshold.

The method 400 can further comprise filtering the read coverage data. Filtering the read coverage data can comprise filtering the read coverage data based on a level of guanine-cytosine (GC) content in one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions. Filtering the read coverage data based on a level of guanine-cytosine (GC) content in one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions can comprise determining a level of GC content for each of the plurality of genomic regions and excluding one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions having a level of GC content outside a range.

In an aspect, the present methods can filter one or more genomic regions with extreme GC content. GC-amplification bias can be corrected when the bias is mostly consistent for any particular level of GC content. At very low or high GC content, however, the stochastic coverage volatility may increase dramatically, making it difficult to normalize effectively. Accordingly, the present methods can filter one or more genomic regions where the GC-fraction is outside of a configurable (e.g., or predefined) range or threshold. As an illustration, the configurable range can comprise [0.3, 0.7], as shown in FIG. 5. It should be appreciated, however, that other ranges (e.g., thresholds) can be utilized as appropriate. FIG. 5 shows a graph illustrating the relationship of GC content and coverage. For example, the coefficient of variation (e.g., standard deviation divided by mean) of coverage is shown on the y-axis and GC content is shown in the x-axis. The graph shows 50 samples (e.g., points jittered for visibility). Above a default upper-limit (e.g., GC=0.7) of the configurable range, coverage variance can be very high relative to the mean. Below a default lower-limit (e.g., GC content=0.3) of the configurable range, additional problems arise. For example, the variance of coverage itself can be highly variable between samples. This variance makes it difficult to accurately estimate the expected variance of coverage for a particular sample at a particular window, as each reference panel sample's coverage value is an observation from a different distribution.

Filtering the read coverage data in the method 400 can comprise filtering one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions based on a mappability score of the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions. Filtering one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions based on a mappability score of the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions can comprise determining a mappability score for each genomic region of the plurality of genomic regions and excluding one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic if the mappability score of the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions is below a predetermined threshold.

For example, the present methods and systems can filter the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions where the mean mappability score for k-mers starting at each base in a window (default k=75) is less than 0.75. Determining a mappability score for each genomic region of the plurality of genomic regions can comprise determining an average of an inverse reference-genome frequency of k-mers whose first base overlaps the genomic region of the plurality of genomic regions.

In an aspect, the method 400 can further comprise normalizing the read coverage data. Normalizing the read coverage data can comprise determining an exome-wide ratio of read coverage for each chromosome relative to other autosomes. The exome-wide ratio (γ) can be determined for each chromosome (i) by:

$γ_{i} = \frac{r_{i}}{\sum_{\forall j \in (A - i)} r_{j}}$

wherein A is the set of autosomes and r is read coverage.

At step 404, expected read coverage data for each chromosome in the plurality of samples can be determined. Determining expected read coverage data for each chromosome in the plurality of samples can comprise applying a linear regression model to determine an expected exome-wide ratio for each chromosome, wherein a plurality of metrics are used as covariates. The plurality of metrics can comprise sequencing quality control metrics (QC metrics). Systematic coverage biases that arise due to variability in sequencing conditions are commonly referred to as “batch effects.” In an aspect, the present methods and systems can be configured to correct for batch effects. For example, instead of comparing read coverage data based on the read coverage profiles—a high-dimensional space—the present methods and systems can be configured to consider a low-dimensional metric space based on sequencing quality control (QC) metrics. For example, the sequencing QC metrics can comprise seven sequencing QC metrics. The sequencing QC metrics can comprise sequencing QC metrics from a sequencing tool, such as Picard. Working in this low-dimensional space allows for improved scalability. For example, samples can be indexed ahead-of-time (e.g., using any appropriate indexing and/or search algorithm).

In an aspect, the expected exome-wide ratio ({circumflex over (γ)}) can be determined for each chromosome (i) by:

{circumflex over (γ)}_i=f(QC metrics,γ_j,γ_k)

wherein chromosomes j,k are defined as two autosomes with minimal D statistics relative to a GC content distribution of chromosome i and ε_iis a random component of a linear relationship between {circumflex over (γ)} and γ_j,γ_k.

At step 406, a deviation between the read coverage data and the expected read coverage data for at least one chromosome in the plurality of samples can be determined. Determining a deviation between the read coverage data and the expected read coverage data for at least one chromosome in the plurality of samples can comprise determining, for each chromosome in the plurality of samples, a difference between the read coverage data and the expected read coverage data to generate a plurality of residuals and Z-score normalizing the plurality of residuals relative to a standard error of the mean estimate, S({circumflex over (γ)}_i), for an individual sample of the plurality of samples with covariates x:

$S ({\hat{γ}}_{i}) = S_{e} \sqrt{\frac{1}{n} + \frac{{(x - \overline{x})}^{2}}{\sum_{j = 1 \dots n} {(x_{j} - \overline{x})}^{2}}}$

where S_eis the residual standard error, and:

$Z_{i} = \frac{(γ_{i} - {\hat{γ}}_{i})}{S ({\hat{γ}}_{i}) \sqrt{n}} .$

See FIG. 6, which depicts the results obtained using a linear regression model, in which the covariates included QC metrics and chromosomes, and in which the observed (γ_i) and expected ({circumflex over (γ)}_i) values after fitting the linear regression are shown 6. In another aspect, a different standard error estimator can be used, for example the raw residual standard error (one value for the entire model) or using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors.

The method 400 can further comprise determining a p-value based on the Z-score for each chromosome to identify significantly large residuals, representing abnormal karyotypes for chromosome i. Significantly large residuals can comprise residuals having a p-value less than 0.05. See FIG. 6.

At step 408, the at least one chromosome can be identified as an abnormal karyotype. The identified abnormal karyotype(s) can be output. For example, the identified abnormal karyotype(s) can be output to a user (e.g., via a user interface). The identified abnormal karyotype(s) can be transmitted via a network to remote location. The identified abnormal karyotype(s) can be provided as input to another executable program. The identified abnormal karyotype(s) can be stored in a storage location, such as a database, or other file format. Example output is shown in FIGS. 7-10.

FIG. 7A-F are allele balance plots showing partial chromosome allele balance events for chromosomes 9, 13, and 20. The subplot number is the chromosome number. The shaded bar 701 denotes the normal range of variability expected for a heterozygous SNP allele balance of 0.5. The line 702 denotes the whole chromosome median allele balance. The dashed line 703 denotes the local median allele balance in an approximately 20 SNP rolling window. The line 704 denotes runs-of-homozygosity. FIG. 8 is a read coverage plot that shows a significant underrepresentation of reads for chromosomes 13 and 20 for the same sample.

FIG. 9A-F are allele balance plots of a trisomy 21 sample (Down Syndrome). The allele balance plots show an anomaly on chromosome 21 in a sample and a run-of-homozygosity encompassing all of chromosome X, implying a karyotypically normal male sample having only one X chromosome. The shaded bar (901) denotes the normal range of variability expected for a heterozygous SNP allele balance of 0.5. The solid line (902) denotes the whole chromosome median allele balance. The dashed line (903) denotes the local median allele balance in an approximately 20 SNP rolling window. The line (904) denotes runs-of-homozygosity. FIG. 10 is a read coverage plot for the same sample.

Information obtained using the methods disclosed herein can be reported by a clinician to a patient, for example, in order to provide further clinical insight into an existing diagnosis, such as autism or an autism-spectrum condition.

Information obtained using the methods disclosed herein can also be used by a clinician to provide a patient with clarity about known or unknown fertility issues, for example, in a patient with a sex chromosome abnormality.

The methods disclosed herein can also be used to monitor cancer detection and development.

The methods disclosed herein can also be used to determine whether or not a DNA sample contains DNA from two individuals, which can occur, for example, if a DNA sample from one individual is contaminated with DNA from another individual. DNA can also come from two individuals when a twin demise/human chimera event occurs, i.e., a multiple gestation pregnancy in which not every fetus survives and a deceased twin's DNA becomes incorporated into a surviving fetus's DNA. In such situations, the result would be a skewed, multimodal allele balance for all regions of the genome in which the twins' DNAs are not identical, which is ˜75% of the genome for dizygotic twins. DNA can also come from two individuals when blood or tissue from one individual is transplanted into another individual. DNA can also come from two individuals when maternal-fetal DNA is mixed when a non-invasive prenatal test sample is obtained.

Returning to FIG. 4, the method 400 can further comprise detecting one or more outliers and removing the one or more outliers from consideration for identification as an abnormal karyotype. Detecting one or more outliers can comprise flagging one or more of the plurality of samples having leverage (h_i, where 1/n<h_i<1) above a threshold on the linear regression model for each chromosome, wherein leverage is determined as a function of n and p:

$h_{i} (n, p) = [\frac{1}{n} + \frac{{(x - \overline{x})}^{2}}{\sum_{j = 1 \dots n} {(x_{j} - \overline{x})}^{2}}] \cdot \frac{n}{p + 1}$

where p is the number of covariates in the model, x_irepresents a vector of covariates for sample i, and x is the vector of covariate means across the sample population. The threshold can be from about 3 to about 5.

Read coverage data can be computed from genome-aligned sequence reads that are generated prior to the KaryoScan method herein, for the purpose of detecting single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertions and deletions (indels) for individual samples. SNPs having only two observed alleles (or one observed homozygous allele that differs from a second allele defined by the reference genome that is unobserved in the sequence reads of this particular sample) are termed bi-allelic SNPs. By focusing on bi-allelic SNPs, one can calculate the allele balance of a particular site in the genome.

In a further aspect, allele balance analysis can be used to identify one or more karyotypes. Allele balance is a measure of how many sequence reads support each allele. For example, if a heterozygous SNP is covered by 100 sequence reads, and the sample is diploid in this genomic region, 50 reads of one allele and 50 reads of the other allele can be expected, yielding an allele balance of 0.5/0.5. Because the allele balance of both alleles sums to 1 and is symmetric about 0.5, the focus is on the minor allele balance (e.g., the allele with fewer reads, or a randomly selected allele if the two alleles are exactly equal in coverage). In practice, the observed allele balance is rarely exactly 50%, but will follow a probability distribution that reflects how many reads of each allele occur over a sample of size N (N=number of aligned sequence reads) given a true proportion, p. Ideally, a heterozygous SNP in a diploid sample has p=0.5, and the allele balance could be modeled with a binomial distribution with an expected value of 0.5.

In a sample with a non-diploid region (trisomy 21, for example), bi-allelic heterozygous SNPs in the non-diploid region will not have an expected allele balance of 0.5. If one chromosome is duplicated, such as for trisomy 21, ⅔ chromosome 21 copies will have one allele, and ⅓ chromosome 21 copies will have the other, yielding an expected allele balance ˜0.333. Therefore, by modeling the allele balance distribution over the entire chromosome with a measure of central tendency, one can validate a trisomy 21 call from the read depth model by ensuring that the corresponding allele balance converges to roughly 0.333. Metrics such as a median allele balance estimate across the chromosome can be used. Similarly, for a monosomy chromosome, only one allele can be present and no heterozygous SNPs will be identified. Therefore, allele balance will be 0 or entirely unobserved, and only homozygous SNPs (hemizygous) can be identified. These regions can be identified via runs-of-homozygosity.

Both of these examples assume a whole-chromosome duplication or deletion. However, partial chromosome duplications and deletions can also be observed in allele balance distributions. To distinguish partial chromosome events, one can use a local estimate of central tendency and identify deviations in this local estimate from the remainder of the chromosome. In practice, variance in allele balance is proportional to the number of reads covering the SNP, and the local estimate must be smoothed over a large enough number of sites to reduce the total variance contributed by individual sites. To achieve this smoothing, one can compute a rolling median over a window of 20 heterozygous bi-allelic SNPs. This window size can be increased or decreased depending on sequencing depth, as deeper sequencing has lower variance at each particular site due to an increased sample size. Similarly, runs-of-homozygosity can be identified that span only portions of the chromosome.

In addition to partial chromosome events, mosaic events (whole or partial chromosome) will also be reflected in allele balance distribution deviations. Mosaic events are events that occur in a subset of the cell population that provided DNA for the sequenced sample. Mosaicism can be a result of somatic mutation (such as in cancer) or in errors in early germline cell division. For example, if a whole chromosome deletion occurs in only 50% of sequenced cells, heterozygous SNPs from the deleted chromosome will have an expected 25% allele balance in addition to a 25% depletion in read coverage. Thus, allele balance can also be used to distinguish mosaic events.

Not all abnormal karyotypes result in a different number of chromosomes. Uniparental disomy (UPD), for example, occurs when a chromosome has two copies that come from the same parent, and no copies from the other parent. These events will not be detected in read coverage deviations, but can be identified from the heterozygous allele balance (if the event is mosaic) or from runs-of-homozygosity (if the event is not mosaic).

Anomalies in chromosomal coverage can also occur without causing an anomaly in allele balance. For example, if a chromosome is duplicated into four copies (tetrasomy), the resulting karyotype may have two chromosomes of each parental origin, yielding a normal allele balance of ˜50%. This would have the same effect in both mosaic and non-mosaic events.

FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating an example method 1100 for detecting abnormal karyotypes incorporating read coverage and allele balance analysis. The method 1100 can determine one or more metrics which are described here for convenience and referred to in the description of the method flow. The method 1100 can determine a variant allele balance which can be a variant-specific metric determined by calculating a minimum (# of alternate allele reads, # of reference allele reads)/total # reads. In one aspect, the method 1100 can utilize “AD” (allele depth) and “DP” (read depth) tags from one or more VCF files to determine the variant allele balance.

The method 1100 can determine a callable chromosome length which can be a chromosome-specific metric determined by calculating a # of base pairs between the first and last unfiltered exons on the chromosome−# of overlapping centromeric bases. The adjustment for centromeric bases accounts for seemingly large events that span the centromere, where no read coverage is present. In practice, genomic centromere boundaries can be adjusted to the nearest exonic boundaries. Similarly, restricting to the first and last unfiltered exons accounts for long telomeric regions without exon coverage, as well as for chromosomes having entire arms lacking exon coverage (e.g., many acrocentric chromosomes).

The method 1100 can determine a chromosome-wide heterozygous allele balance (referred to as ChromHetAB) which is a chromosome-specific metric that enables filtering for putative heterozygous SNPs whereby variant allele balance >0.02 (threshold can be adjusted closer to or further from 0 depending on sequencing depth). ChromHetAB can be a summary statistic (e.g., median) representing the chromosome-wide heterozygous SNP allele balance among all unfiltered variants within a chromosome. For example, ChromHetAB can be determined by calculating a median(variant allele balance) for all unfiltered variants within a chromosome. References to ChromHetAB with respect to a specific SNP, LocalHetAB Event, or ROH Event can refer to the ChromHetAB value for the chromosome on which the SNP or event occurs. ChromHetAB can be a summary statistic (e.g., median) representing the chromosome-wide heterozygous SNP allele balance among all unfiltered variants within a chromosome.

The method 1100 can determine a local median heterozygous allele balance (referred to as LocalHetAB) which is a variant-specific metric that enables filtering for possible heterozygous SNPs whereby variant allele balance >0.02 (threshold can be adjusted closer to or further from 0 depending on sequencing depth). LocalHetAB can be determined by calculating a running median of variant allele balance over an entire chromosome, using a 20 SNP window and constant ends. In an aspect, determining the LocalHetAB can comprises determining a smoothed, sub-chromosome scale (e.g., local) summary statistic (e.g., running median) of a sample's heterozygous SNP allele balance across all unfiltered variants on a chromosome.

The method 1100 can determine a contiguous region of two or more SNPs, all having LocalHetAB<ChromHetAB (referred to as a LocalHetAB Event). The method 1100 can define coordinates (start and end chromosomal position) by first and last SNP within the LocalHetAB Event. There can be zero to a plurality of LocalHetAB Events per chromosome. The method 1100 can determine a LocalHetAB Event Area by calculating a normalized “area under the curve” for LocalHetAB Events. For example, for a pair of neighboring SNPs within a LocalHetAB Event, determine a PairwiseArea=[ChromHetAB−Average(LocalHetAB(SNP1), LocalHetAB(SNP2))]*(SNP2 position−SNP1 position−# of overlapping centromeric base pairs). In the smallest form, a LocalHetAB Event can have exactly two neighboring SNPs. LocalHetAB events with more than two SNPs can be viewed as a chain of N−1 neighboring SNP pairs, where N=the # of SNPs in the event. LocalHetAB events with two or more SNPs can be determined by calculating a sum(PairwiseArea for all N−1 neighboring SNP pairs in the LocalHetAB Event)/(callable chromosome length*ChromHetAB).

The method 1100 can determine a summary allele balance (AB) statistic for a LocalHetAB Event (referred to as a LocalHetAB Event AB) by determining a minimum(LocalHetAB, for all SNPs in the LocalHetAB Event). Because LocalHetAB is a smoothed (running median) estimate of the allele balance, the minimum is a good estimate for the entire event. However, alternative metrics (e.g. mean, median, 1^stquartile, etc.) may be better suited in other applications (e.g. larger SNP window size, deeper sequencing, whole-genome sequencing, etc.).

The method 1100 can determine Runs-of-Homozygosity (referred to as ROH) which is a variant-specific metric for chromosomal regions where little-to-no heterozygosity is observed. ROH is a binary (yes/no) flag at every variant, but may have supporting metrics (e.g., confidence score). In an aspect, determining ROH can include use of the BCFtools/RoH method described by Narasimhan, V., et al. (2016) Bioinformatics, 32(11), 1749-1751), incorporated by reference herein in its entirety. Example options for ROH determination include, but are not limited to, Autozygous-to-Hardy Weinberg transition probability (−a option)=6.6e−09, Hardy Weinberg-to-Autozygous transition probability (−H option)=5.0e−10, Ignore indels (−I option), Restrict to SNPs within exons (i.e. no flanking region SNPs), and Utilize internal RGC (EVE) variant frequencies. In an aspect, one or more alternative method could be used. For example, Plink as described by Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, et al. PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2007; 81(3):559-575, incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.

The method 1100 can determine a contiguous region of one or more SNPs predicted as ROH (referred to as a ROH Event). Event coordinates can be defined as the chromosomal positions of the first and last SNP within the ROH Event.

Returning to FIG. 11, data for all samples can be subjected to quality control (QC) filtering at block 1102. The data can comprise, for example, VCF files (e.g., one VCF file per sample), depth of coverage files, and/or external quality control metrics (e.g., Picard metrics computed from a BAM read-mapping file). The VCF files can comprise marker and genotype data for gene sequence variations. The depth of coverage files can comprise indications of a number of reads that include a given nucleotide or sequence of nucleotides. QC filtering can comprise application of one or more sample filtering criteria to the depth of coverage files, VCF files, and/or external quality control metrics. The one or more sample filtering criteria can comprise, for example, standard contamination filters (such as high heterozygous to homozygous SNP call ratios), filtering based on low sequence coverage (<75% of bases at 20× coverage or higher), and/or filtering based on low DNA quality, combinations thereof, and the like. In an aspect, the QC filtering can comprise application of one or more variant filtering criteria to the VCF files. The one or more variant filtering criteria can comprise, for example, analyzing bi-allelic SNPs only (remove multi-allelic sites and indels), filtering based on minimum variant quality (QD>5, GT>30, pass VQSR filter [variant quality score recalibration]), filtering based on minimum read-depth (DP>=20), and/or filtering based on locus quality (1. only exons with >90% mappability, 2. exclude exons where >2 copies is common (e.g. multi-copy CNV loci), 3. exclude other regions with mappability issues (e.g. HLA genes)), combinations thereof, and the like.

At block 1104, gender assignment can be performed on data associated with samples that pass through the QC filtering at block 1102. Gender assignment can comprise determining a minimum chromosome Y read coverage ratio (relative to a chromosome X read coverage ratio) to determine if a sample is male (above the threshold) or female (below the threshold). FIG. 13A is a plot of chromosome X versus chromosome Y coverage ratios for all samples and a threshold for determining male (1302) and female (1304) samples indicated by the solid line 1306. Additionally, male samples having chromosome Y duplications can be identified using a chromosome Y coverage ratio threshold (dashed line 1308). If sample genders are already known or reported for samples, the existing assignments can be used to help determine appropriate thresholds. After gender assignment at block 1104, each chromosome from the sample(s) can be processed via one or more of the remaining blocks of the method 1100.

If the sample is deemed male, the method 1100 will proceed to block 1106. At block 1106, the method 1100 can determine if coverage of the Y chromosome is greater than a threshold, for example, 0.0015. If the coverage of the Y chromosome is greater than the threshold, the method 1100 can determine at block 1108 that there has been a duplication of the Y chromosome and proceed to block 1138 as the Y chromosome can be treated independently of other chromosomes. If the coverage of the Y chromosome is less than the threshold, the method 1100 can determine at block 1108 that the sample has a normal dosage of Y chromosome reads for a male sample and therefore no detectable anomaly occurs on the Y chromosome.

Returning to block 1104, gender assignment can comprise determining whether the sample is expected to have one or two X chromosomes (male or female), in which case the method 1100 will proceed to block 1110 to process chromosome X for the sample. At block 1110, the method 1100 can determine whether the data is derived from a male. If at block 1110, it is determined that the data is derived from a male, the method 1100 will proceed to blocks 1112 and 1114. If at block 1110, it is determined that the data is not derived from a male, the method 1100 will proceed to blocks 1112, 1114, 1116, and 1118. Returning to block 1104, gender assignment can comprise determining that the data comprises an autosome, in which case the method 1100 will proceed to blocks 1112, 1114, 1116, and 1118.

At block 1112, the method 1100 can detect read coverage anomalies. Block 1112 can be performed as described herein with reference to one or more portions of FIG. 1 and/or FIG. 4. At block 1114, the method 1100 can detect ChromHetAB anomalies. At block 1116, the method 1100 can detect ROH anomalies. At block 1118, the method 1100 can detect LocalHetAB anomalies.

Blocks 1114, 1116, and 1118 related to determination of three allele-balance metrics (ChromHetAB, ROH, and LocalHetAB, respectively). These three allele-balance metrics can be used for detecting different types of anomalies, but can result in overlapping evidence. For example, ROH can be used for identifying constitutional chromosomal deletions (whole or partial chromosome), as heterozygosity should not be observed in these regions. Similarly, ROH can identify large uniparental disomy (UPD) events (copy neutral, whole or partial chromosome), but is not useful for identifying duplications. However, the LocalHetAB and ChromHetAB metrics may also produce anomalous signals within an ROH event by identifying small amounts of noise (due to technical artifacts, such as sequencing errors) resembling putative heterozygosity, having variant allele balance values close to 0; these signals can be ignored in lieu of the ROH anomaly (see FIG. 12, representing an ROH event with an overlapping LocalHetAB event). FIG. 12 is an example allele balance plot of a sample on chromosome 4, in which a large run-of-homozygosity is detected (1202) that has an overlapping LocalHetAB Event (1204) due to small amounts of non-zero allele balance among homozygous SNPs in the anomalous region. In the case of a whole chromosome duplication or other mosaic whole chromosome event, ChromHetAB can be the most relevant metric; it should equal roughly ⅓ for a trisomy, or a fraction representative of the copy number and cellular fraction of a mosaic event. For a partial chromosome event, LocalHetAB can be the most relevant metric as it will detect event start and end coordinates. However, a large, partial chromosome event can also influence the chromosome-wide ChromHetAB metric, creating an anomalous signal that is better captured by the LocalHetAB event.

Thus, balancing the evidence provided by each metric (and interpreting each relative to read coverage anomaly signals) can be a component of automating the detection and characterization of a chromosomal anomaly. To handle integrating these signals that have differences in sensitivity, specificity, scale, and context, three Tiers of putatively anomalous signals can be defined for each metric, where Tier 1 signals are the most significant and Tier 3 are the least. Tier ratings are used to standardize and integrate these heterogeneous metrics, enabling simple decisions as to which signals are most relevant. Other numbers of Tiers can be used and defined.

Returning to block 1112, detection of read coverage anomalies can utilize the following Tier definitions. Tier 1 can comprise read coverage p-value<a threshold, such as 0.05/(# of chromosome/sample pairs tested). Bonferroni-correction can be applied with a family-wise error rate=5%. Tier 2 can comprise not passing Tier 1 and chromosome-specific FDR-corrected p-value (q-value)<a threshold, such as 0.05. Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction can be applied with a false discovery rate=5% per chromosome. Tier 3 can comprise not passing Tier 1 or Tier 2 and read coverage p-value<a threshold, such as 0.05. One or more exceptions can apply to X Chromosome analysis. For example, Tier 3 signals on chrX can be promoted to Tier 2 if the absolute value (magnitude) of the estimated chromosomal dosage fraction is >5%.

Returning to block 1114, because the variant allele balance metric always reflects the fraction of reads from the allele of a bi-allelic SNP with fewer reads, the expected ChromHetAB value for a karyotypically normal, diploid sample on a given chromosome is unlikely to be exactly 50%, but approaches 50% as sequencing depth increases. Therefore, a linear regression can be fit on the ChromHetAB values for all samples on a given chromosome (females only for chromosome X) relative to the PCTTARGETBASES50× quality control metric (calculated per sample using Picard) (FIG. 13B, showing an increasing ChromHetAB value among karyotypically normal samples relative to increasing PCTTARGETBASES50× values, and the identification of anomalous signals [colored dots] at different significance tiers). Once the linear regression model has been fit, a Z-score can be calculated for the residual of every sample's ChromHetAB value (observed ChromHetAB−expected ChromHetAB as defined by the regression). The Z-score can be calculated as Z=(sample residual)/(residual standard deviation of the regression model). The Z-score can be transformed into a p-value.

At block 1114, detection of ChromHetAB anomalies can utilize the following Tier definitions. Tier 1 can comprise ChromHetAB residual p-value<a threshold, such as 0.05/(# of chromosome/sample pairs tested). Bonferroni-correction can be applied with a family-wise error rate=5%. Tier 2 can comprise not passing Tier 1 and passing a chromosome-specific FDR-corrected p-value (q-value)<a threshold, such as 0.05. Benjamini-Hochberg can be applied with a FDR correction False discovery rate=5% per chromosome. Tier 3 can comprise not passing Tier 1 or Tier 2 and ChromHetAB residual p-value<a threshold, such as 0.05. One or more exceptions can apply to X Chromosome analysis. If a sample is male, ChromHetAB can be ignored and not tested unless >75 SNPs are included in the metric's calculation and the ChromHetAB >0.15. These filters allow for chrX duplications in males to be included if they have a ChromHetAB value much larger than expected (i.e., zero for a single X chromosome) and having a sufficient number of SNPs used to call the ChromHetAB value confidently, while removing noise from karyotypically normal male samples (FIG. 14, showing the ChromHetAB value and number of putatively heterozygous SNPs tested on chromosome X for male samples, with minimum thresholds indicated by solid lines). In this context, defining a male sample can refer to the assignment (based on X and Y read coverage) to have an expectation of one X and one Y chromosome, assuming a karyotypically normal state. Any male ChromHetAB signal from chrX passing these filters can be assigned to Tier 1 (regardless of p-value). In an aspect, detecting a ChromHetAB anomaly can comprise identifying a sample with a ChromHetAB value that is significantly smaller than the ChromHetAB value (or range of values) expected for a karyotypically normal sample

Returning to block 1116, ROH anomalies can be detected. Small ROH events are relatively common in karyotypically normal samples, and can be particularly frequent among consanguineous samples, for example. Therefore minimum size thresholds for ROH events can be defined to capture only large, chromosome-scale events. ROH event detection can be challenging when truly homozygous variants have non-zero variant allele balance due to technical artifacts. As a result, some large ROH events get fragmented into two or more ROH events (FIG. 12). Thus independent ROH events within a chromosome are considered in combination. Detection of ROH Anomalies can utilize the following Tier definitions. ROH events having length (excluding overlapping centromeric bases)<5,000,000 bp can be filtered. Tier 1 can comprise the total (genome-wide) number of non-centromeric ROH bases from unfiltered ROH events>=20,000,000. Tier 2 can comprise unfiltered ROH events not passing Tier 1. One or more exceptions can apply to X Chromosome analysis. All ROH signals for male samples on chrX can be ignored. In this context, defining a male sample refers to the assignment (based on X and Y read coverage) to have an expectation of one X and one Y chromosome, assuming a karyotypically normal state.

Returning to block 1118, LocalHetAB anomalies can be detected. Qualitatively, significant LocalHetAB Event anomalies should have large LocalHetAB Event Area metrics and be supported by a large number of included SNPs. A linear function can be defined to empirically fit to the exome data set relating LocalHetAB Event Area and # of SNPs included in the LocalHetAB Event (“# of SNPs”), with tier definitions defined using different intercepts on the same slope coefficient (e.g., minimum # of SNPs required for an event having a particular LocalHetAB Event Area). See FIG. 15 showing all LocalHetAB events (dots) with area >0.02 (vertical line) and their separation into tiers based on the regions between diagonal lines (red points indicate an overlapping ROH event exists, providing supporting evidence that the LocalHetAB event is detecting an anomaly). Detection of LocalHetAB anomalies can utilize the following Tier definitions. Events where LocalHetAB Event Area <0.02 can be filtered. Tier 1 can comprise # of SNPs+(LocalHetAB Event Area*a first amount such as 3000)>=a second amount such as 230. Tier 2 can comprise # of SNPs+(LocalHetAB Event Area*a first amount such as 3000)>=a second amount such as 170. Tier 3 can comprise # of SNPs+(LocalHetAB Event Area*a first amount such as 3000)>=a second amount such as 110. One or more exceptions can apply to X Chromosome analysis. All LocalHetAB signals for male samples on chrX are ignored. In this context, defining a male sample refers to the assignment (based on X and Y read coverage) to have an expectation of one X and one Y chromosome, assuming a karyotypically normal state. In an aspect, detecting a LocalHetAB anomaly can comprise where the LocalHetAB value falls below (e.g., significantly below) the corresponding ChromHetAB value over a chromosomal region, indicating a possible partial chromosome anomaly.

The analysis performed at blocks 1112, 1114, 1116, and 1118 for the disclosed metrics contribute to a chromosomal anomaly prediction. However, the metrics can be annotated with tier ratings, filtered to remove non-anomalous metrics, and aggregated at block 1136 prior to karyotype prediction at block 1138. At block 1120, the method 1100 can report anomalous events identified by each metric from blocks 1112, 1114, 1116, and 1118, and score each event into Tiers (e.g., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc. . . . ) that standardize the scaling between metrics and simplify their aggregation for abnormal karyotype (chromosomal anomaly) assessment. In an aspect, the method 1100 can report and/or score events for each of the one or more Tiers (e.g., Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, etc. . . . ) used. At block 1112 the read coverage anomaly metric can be used for assessing chromosomal dosage and the remaining three can be used to assess allele balance and zygosity (ChromMedAB, ROH, and LocalHetAB events).

At block 1122, the method 1100 can determine whether the event reflects a copy gain, a copy loss, or is copy neutral. This assessment can be made primarily based on the presence or absence of a read coverage anomaly, but supplementary information from allele balance-related metrics can also be considered. For example, all Tier 1 read coverage anomalies may be predicted as gains or losses independently, but Tier 2 and/or Tier 3 read coverage anomalies may only be deemed gains or losses if a supporting allele balance anomaly is also detected on the same chromosome. If no read coverage anomaly is detected to call a gain or loss, the event is assumed to be copy neutral, and may additionally be flagged as uncertain if a low-quality read coverage anomaly is detected but filtered.

If at block 1122, it is determined that the event reflects a copy gain, the method 1100 can proceed to block 1124 to determine if the underlying chromosome is a whole or a partial chromosome, based on comparison of anomalous LocalHetAB and ChromHetAB events on the chromosome. For example, if a LocalHetAB event has a lower tier rating (e.g. more significant) than an overlapping ChromHetAB event (or if no ChromHetAB event is reported), the event may be predicted as partial chromosome given that the LocalHetAB event is more significant. Conversely, a lower tier ChromHetAB event would suggest a whole chromosome event is more likely the case. If both events occur at the same tier rating, the method may report the anomaly as uncertain and/or favor one event as more heavily weighted (e.g. favor LocalHetAB and call a partial chromosome event). Furthermore, the method may also compare estimates of the chromosomal fraction gain computed from the read coverage 11 to similar estimates from each allele balance anomaly, and weight the allele balance events by how closely their estimates match the estimate from read coverage. Whether the underlying chromosomal anomaly is predicted to be whole (ChromHetAB) or partial (LocalHetAB) chromosome, the method 1100 can proceed to block 1126 and utilize the respective allele balance metric to determine if the copy gain is a mosaic event by determining how close the heterozygous allele balance estimate is to 1/N, where N is the number of chromosomal copies predicted (e.g. ⅓ for a single copy autosomal gain). One may apply an error threshold around this expected rate (e.g. ⅓±0.02) to make a binary (yes or no) classification for mosaicism. If no overlapping LocalHetAB nor ChromHetAB event is reported, one may assign the chromosomal and mosaic fraction estimates to uncertain and/or set a default value.

If at block 1122, it is determined that the event reflects a copy loss, the method 1100 can proceed to block 1128 to determine if the copy loss is a mosaic event by utilizing ROH. If the copy loss is not mosaic (e.g., an ROH event is detected), the method 1100 can utilize ROH to determine if the underlying chromosomal anomaly is whole or partial by assessing what proportion of the callable chromosome is covered by ROH events. If a copy loss is mosaic (e.g., no ROH event reported) the method 1100 can utilize and compare tier ratings from reported ChromHetAB and LocalHetAB events to determine if the underlying chromosome is whole or partial. This assessment is similar to that of copy gains (block 1124), where a more significant LocalHetAB event may indicate a partial chromosome event and a more significant ChromHetAB event may indicate a whole chromosome event, and an allele balance-based estimate of chromosomal fraction can be compared to the read coverage event's chromosomal fraction estimate.

If at block 1122, it is determined that the event is copy neutral, the method 1100 can proceed to block 1128 to determine if the copy neutral event is a mosaic utilizing ROH. If the copy neutral event is not mosaic (e.g., an ROH event is reported), the method 1100 can utilize ROH to determine if the underlying chromosome is whole or partial. If the copy neutral event is a mosaic the method 1100 can utilize ChromHetAB and LocalHetAB to determine if the underlying chromosome is whole or partial.

The output of blocks 1126, 1130, and 1134 flow to block 1136 where every anomaly can be reported with one or more of: 1) prediction of copy neutral, copy gain, or copy loss; 2) prediction of a whole or partial chromosome event; 3) prediction of mosaic or not mosaic; 4) a final tier rating, which can be equal to the minimum (most significant) tier rating for all events reported on the chromosome, or can be additionally modified to up- or down-weight anomalies if they have multiple mid-tier events (e.g., a tier 2 read coverage event with a supporting tier 2 LocalHetAB event may be deemed tier 1); and 5) a summary of some or all events reported for the chromosome, their tier ratings, and whether they were chosen as a primary or supporting event (e.g., for a non-mosaic, whole chromosome loss with tier 1 read coverage, ROH, and ChromHetAB events, read coverage and ROH are primary events, but ChromHetAB is a supporting event despite being tier 1, given that it was trumped by the overlapping ROH event). Block 1136 receives anomalies from zero or a plurality of chromosomes and aggregates them for a sample, then proceeds to block 1138 to make a final karyotype prediction.

The output of block 1138 represents a karyotype prediction, where some or all chromosomal anomalies have been aggregated for a sample and interpreted relative to the expected karyotype (given the gender assignment from block 1104). This may be represented as a traditional karyotype coding (e.g., “47,XXY”) and/or a list of anomalies and their supporting information. Given the uncertainty of an automated karyotype prediction and the fact that certain complex karyotypes (e.g. isochromosomes) have unique patterns not easily interpreted automatically, supporting read coverage and allele balance diagnostic plots can be computed by block 1138 for every sample, enabling manual inspection of predicted chromosomal anomalies and their supporting evidence. In an aspect, final anomalous karyotype calls can comprise one or more of: Sample; Chromosome; Start/End coordinates; Dosage change vs. copy neutral prediction (gain, loss, neutral, uncertain); Whole vs. partial chromosome event prediction (whole, partial, uncertain); Predicted mosaic event (yes, no, uncertain); Fraction estimate from read coverage, (i.e. chromosomal fraction*mosaic fraction, where a single copy, non-mosaic chromosomal gain=1, or loss=−1); Fraction estimate from allele balance (based on the anomalous allele balance metric deemed most relevant if more than one exists); Summary of all Tier 3 or greater anomalous signals for this sample/chromosome pair; Final, integrated tier rating; Supporting read coverage and allele balance diagnostic plots (such as the type illustrated in FIG. 2, FIG. 3, FIG. 5, FIG. 6, FIG. 7, FIG. 8, FIG. 9, and/or FIG. 10), allowing manual inspection and classification of the karyotype; combinations thereof, and the like.

In an exemplary aspect, the methods and systems can be implemented on a computer 1601 as illustrated in FIG. 16 and described below. Similarly, the methods and systems disclosed can utilize one or more computers to perform one or more functions in one or more locations. FIG. 16 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary operating environment for performing the disclosed methods. This exemplary operating environment is only an example of an operating environment and is not intended to suggest any limitation as to the scope of use or functionality of operating environment architecture. Neither should the operating environment be interpreted as having any dependency or requirement relating to any one or combination of components illustrated in the exemplary operating environment.

The present methods and systems can be operational with numerous other general purpose or special purpose computing system environments or configurations. Examples of well-known computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that can be suitable for use with the systems and methods comprise, but are not limited to, personal computers, server computers, laptop devices, and multiprocessor systems. Additional examples comprise set top boxes, programmable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframe computers, distributed computing environments that comprise any of the above systems or devices, and the like.

The processing of the disclosed methods and systems can be performed by software components. The disclosed systems and methods can be described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as program modules, being executed by one or more computers or other devices. Generally, program modules comprise computer code, routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The disclosed methods can also be practiced in grid-based and distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by remote processing devices that are linked through a communications network. In a distributed computing environment, program modules can be located in both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices.

Further, one skilled in the art will appreciate that the systems and methods disclosed herein can be implemented via a general-purpose computing device in the form of a computer 1601. The components of the computer 1601 can comprise, but are not limited to, one or more processors 1603, a system memory 1612, and a system bus 1613 that couples various system components including the one or more processors 1603 to the system memory 1612. The system can utilize parallel computing.

The system bus 1613 represents one or more of several possible types of bus structures, including a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, an accelerated graphics port, or local bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. The bus 1613, and all buses specified in this description can also be implemented over a wired or wireless network connection and each of the subsystems, including the one or more processors 1603, a mass storage device 1604, an operating system 1605, KaryoScan software 1606, KaryoScan data 1607, a network adapter 1608, the system memory 1612, an Input/Output Interface 1610, a display adapter 1609, a display device 1611, and a human machine interface 1602, can be contained within one or more remote computing devices 1614a,b,c at physically separate locations, connected through buses of this form, in effect implementing a fully distributed system.

The computer 1601 typically comprises a variety of computer readable media. Exemplary readable media can be any available media that is accessible by the computer 1601 and comprises, for example and not meant to be limiting, both volatile and non-volatile media, removable and non-removable media. The system memory 1612 comprises computer readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM). The system memory 1612 typically contains data such as the KaryoScan data 1607 and/or program modules such as the operating system 1605 and the KaryoScan software 1606 that are immediately accessible to and/or are presently operated on by the one or more processors 1603. The KaryoScan data 1607 can comprise read coverage data and/or expected read coverage data.

In another aspect, the computer 1601 can also comprise other removable/non-removable, volatile/non-volatile computer storage media. By way of example, FIG. 16 illustrates the mass storage device 1604 which can provide non-volatile storage of computer code, computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, and other data for the computer 1601. For example and not meant to be limiting, the mass storage device 1604 can be a hard disk, a removable magnetic disk, a removable optical disk, magnetic cassettes or other magnetic storage devices, flash memory cards, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, random access memories (RAM), read only memories (ROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), and the like.

Optionally, any number of program modules can be stored on the mass storage device 1604, including by way of example, the operating system 1605 and the KaryoScan software 1606. Each of the operating system 1605 and the KaryoScan software 1606 (or some combination thereof) can comprise elements of the programming and the KaryoScan software 1606. The KaryoScan data 1607 can also be stored on the mass storage device 1604. The KaryoScan data 1607 can be stored in any of one or more databases known in the art. Examples of such databases comprise, DB2®, Microsoft® Access, Microsoft® SQL Server, Oracle®, mySQL, PostgreSQL, and the like. The databases can be centralized or distributed across multiple systems.

In another aspect, the user can enter commands and information into the computer 1601 via an input device (not shown). Examples of such input devices comprise, but are not limited to, a keyboard, pointing device (e.g., a “mouse”), a microphone, a joystick, a scanner, tactile input devices such as gloves, and other body coverings, and the like. These and other input devices can be connected to the one or more processors 1603 via the human machine interface 1602 that is coupled to the system bus 1613, but can be connected by other interface and bus structures, such as a parallel port, game port, an IEEE 1394 Port (also known as a Firewire port), a serial port, or a universal serial bus (USB).

In yet another aspect, the display device 1611 can also be connected to the system bus 1613 via an interface, such as the display adapter 1609. It is contemplated that the computer 1601 can have more than one display adapter 1609 and the computer 1601 can have more than one display device 1611. For example, a display device can be a monitor, an LCD (Liquid Crystal Display), or a projector. In addition to the display device 1611, other output peripheral devices can comprise components such as speakers (not shown) and a printer (not shown) which can be connected to the computer 1601 via the Input/Output Interface 1610. Any step and/or result of the methods can be output in any form to an output device. Such output can be any form of visual representation, including, but not limited to, textual, graphical, animation, audio, tactile, and the like. The display 1611 and computer 1601 can be part of one device, or separate devices.

The computer 1601 can operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computing devices 1614a,b,c. By way of example, a remote computing device can be a personal computer, portable computer, smartphone, a server, a router, a network computer, a peer device or other common network node, and so on. Logical connections between the computer 1601 and a remote computing device 1614a,b,c can be made via a network 1615, such as a local area network (LAN) and/or a general wide area network (WAN). Such network connections can be through the network adapter 1608. The network adapter 1608 can be implemented in both wired and wireless environments. Such networking environments are conventional and commonplace in dwellings, offices, enterprise-wide computer networks, intranets, and the Internet.

For purposes of illustration, application programs and other executable program components such as the operating system 1605 are illustrated herein as discrete blocks, although it is recognized that such programs and components reside at various times in different storage components of the computing device 1601, and are executed by the one or more processors 1603 of the computer. In an aspect, at least a portion of the KaryoScan software 1606 and/or the KaryoScan data 1607 can be stored on and/or executed on one or more of the computing device 1601, the remote computing devices 1614a,b,c, and/or combinations thereof. Thus the KaryoScan software 1606 and/or the KaryoScan data 1607 can be operational within a cloud computing environment whereby access to the KaryoScan software 1606 and/or the KaryoScan data 1607 can be performed over the network 1615 (e.g., the Internet). Moreover, in an aspect the KaryoScan data 1607 can be synchronized across one or more of the computing device 1601, the remote computing devices 1614a,b,c, and/or combinations thereof.

An implementation of the KaryoScan software 1606 can be stored on or transmitted across some form of computer readable media. Any of the disclosed methods can be performed by computer readable instructions embodied on computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a computer. By way of example and not meant to be limiting, computer readable media can comprise “computer storage media” and “communications media.” “Computer storage media” comprise volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any methods or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Exemplary computer storage media comprises, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and which can be accessed by a computer.

The methods and systems can employ Artificial Intelligence techniques such as machine learning and iterative learning. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to, expert systems, case based reasoning, Bayesian networks, behavior based AI, neural networks, fuzzy systems, evolutionary computation (e.g. genetic algorithms), swarm intelligence (e.g. ant algorithms), and hybrid intelligent systems (e.g. Expert inference rules generated through a neural network or production rules from statistical learning).

The KaryoScan method herein uses a novel co-normalization technique that assesses chromosomes in the context of their GC content and sequencing performance so that more accurate coverage normalization can be achieved. This is distinct from methods targeting the detection of smaller genomic changes as they are dependent entirely on the local GC-content biases. While methodologies targeting smaller changes can at times detect pieces of larger events, the smoothing functions (hidden Markov models for example) routinely used to understand high-resolution copy number changes in the context of larger events break down at the chromosome-arm scale. Furthermore, the integration of allele frequency data into KaryoScan calls provides for unique features including the detection of balanced genomic changes that do not present any signal in coverage space, but which may represent significant impact due to the loss of genetic variation.

In contrast to methods that force or provide an integer value call for a fractional CNV, such as a somatic cancer mutation or a mosaic event (i.e., in only a subset of cells in the body), the KaryoScan method herein provides an estimate of the fraction.

The following examples are put forth so as to provide those of ordinary skill in the art with a complete disclosure and description of how the compounds, compositions, articles, devices and/or methods claimed herein are made and evaluated, and are intended to be purely exemplary and are not intended to limit the scope of the methods and systems. Efforts have been made to ensure accuracy with respect to numbers (e.g., amounts, etc.), but some errors and deviations should be accounted for.

The disclosed methods were applied to 100,000 samples from the Regeneron Genetics Center's human exome variant database. In total, 3,150 samples were flagged as karyotypically abnormal at the highest stringency level on at least one tested chromosome, with 472 being gains or losses (not copy neutral). Over 200 samples were flagged as having sex chromosomal anomalies (chromosome X or chromosome Y), including extremely rare karyotypes (48, XXXX) and (48, XXXY).

While the methods and systems have been described in connection with preferred embodiments and specific examples, it is not intended that the scope be limited to the particular embodiments set forth, as the embodiments herein are intended in all respects to be illustrative rather than restrictive.

Unless otherwise expressly stated, it is in no way intended that any method set forth herein be construed as requiring that its steps be performed in a specific order. Accordingly, where a method claim does not actually recite an order to be followed by its steps or it is not otherwise specifically stated in the claims or descriptions that the steps are to be limited to a specific order, it is in no way intended that an order be inferred, in any respect. This holds for any possible non-express basis for interpretation, including: matters of logic with respect to arrangement of steps or operational flow; plain meaning derived from grammatical organization or punctuation; the number or type of embodiments described in the specification.

It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that various modifications and variations can be made without departing from the scope or spirit. Other embodiments will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification and practice disclosed herein. It is intended that the specification and examples be considered as exemplary only, with a true scope and spirit being indicated by the following claims.

Claims

1. A method comprising: sequencing, using a sequencer, a plurality of samples;generating, based on the sequencing, a plurality of sequencing quality control (SQC) metrics indicative of a quality of the sequencing of the plurality of samples performed by the sequencer;generating, by a computing device, based on the sequencing, population-scale whole-exome sequencing data;determining, based on the population-scale whole-exome sequencing data, a read coverage data profile for each sample in the plurality of samples relative to each chromosome, wherein each chromosome comprises a plurality of genomic regions;filtering the read coverage data profiles based on a level of guanine-cytosine (GC) content in one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions;determining, based on the filtered read coverage data profiles, an exome-wide ratio of read coverage data for each chromosome relative to other autosomes;determining, based on application of a linear regression model to the filtered read coverage data profiles, an expected exome-wide ratio of read coverage data for each chromosome in the plurality of samples, wherein the linear regression model utilizes the plurality of SQC metrics as covariates, and wherein, for each chromosome, the covariates are restricted to covariates associated with two autosomes with minimal D-statistics relative to a GC content distribution for the chromosome;determining, for at least one chromosome in a sample of the plurality of samples, a deviation between the exome-wide ratio of read coverage data and the expected exome-wide ratio of read coverage data; andreporting, based on the deviation, an abnormal karyotype in the sample of the plurality of samples.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining read coverage data for each chromosome in a plurality of samples, wherein each chromosome comprises a plurality of genomic regions comprises determining a sum of read depths over exomic regions with GC content within a range and a mappability score above a threshold.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein filtering the read coverage data based on a level of guanine-cytosine (GC) content in one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions comprises: determining a level of GC content for each of the plurality of genomic regions; andexcluding one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions having a level of GC content outside a range.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein filtering the read coverage data comprises filtering one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions based on a mappability score of the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein filtering one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions based on a mappability score of the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions comprises: determining a mappability score for each genomic region of the plurality of genomic regions; andexcluding one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic if the mappability score of the one or more genomic regions of the plurality of genomic regions is below a predetermined threshold.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the exome-wide ratio is determined for each chromosome (i) by:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the expected exome-wide ratio ({circumflex over (γ)}) is determined for each chromosome (i) by: {circumflex over (γ)}i=f(QC metrics,γj,γk)wherein chromosomes j,k are defined as two autosomes with minimal D statistics relative to the GC content distribution of chromosome i.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining a deviation between the read coverage data and the expected read coverage data for at least one chromosome in the plurality of samples comprises: determining, for each chromosome in the plurality of samples, a difference between the read coverage data and the expected read coverage data to generate a plurality of residuals; andZ-score normalizing the plurality of residuals relative to a standard error of the mean estimate, S({circumflex over (γ)}i), for an individual sample of the plurality of samples with covariates x:
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising determining a p-value based on the Z-score for each chromosome to identify significantly large residuals, representing abnormal karyotypes for chromosome i.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein significantly large residuals comprise residuals having a p-value less than 0.05.
11. The method of claim 9, further comprising: detecting one or more outliers; andremoving the one or more outliers from consideration for identification as an abnormal karyotype.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein detecting one or more outliers comprises flagging one or more of the plurality of samples having leverage (hi, where 1/n<hi<1) above a threshold on the linear regression model for each chromosome, wherein leverage is determined as a function of n and p:
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the threshold is from about 3 to about 5.
14. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, based on a significance of the deviation, a tier rating to the reported abnormal karyotype.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED PATENT APPLICATION

This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/294,669 filed Feb. 12, 2016, herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.

US Referenced Citations (382)

Number	Name	Date	Kind
5840484	Seilhamer et al.	Nov 1998	A
6434542	Farmen et al.	Aug 2002	B1
6586251	Economides et al.	Jul 2003	B2
6596541	Murphy et al.	Jul 2003	B2
6658396	Tang et al.	Dec 2003	B1
6703228	Landers et al.	Mar 2004	B1
6909971	Toivonen et al.	Jun 2005	B2
6955883	Margus et al.	Oct 2005	B2
7065451	Garner et al.	Jun 2006	B2
7105348	Murphy et al.	Sep 2006	B2
7107155	Frudakis	Sep 2006	B2
7213009	Pestotnik et al.	May 2007	B2
7232656	Balasubramanian et al.	Jun 2007	B2
7324928	Kitchen et al.	Jan 2008	B2
7424371	Kamentsky	Sep 2008	B2
7461006	Gogolak	Dec 2008	B2
7529685	Davies et al.	May 2009	B2
7622271	Kennedy et al.	Nov 2009	B2
7640113	Frudakis et al.	Dec 2009	B2
7698117	Usuka et al.	Apr 2010	B2
7702468	Chinitz et al.	Apr 2010	B2
7734656	Bessette et al.	Jun 2010	B2
7809539	Brocklebank et al.	Oct 2010	B2
7809660	Friedlander et al.	Oct 2010	B2
7820378	van den Boom et al.	Oct 2010	B2
7840512	Pandya et al.	Nov 2010	B2
7912650	Kato et al.	Mar 2011	B2
7912674	Killoren Clark et al.	Mar 2011	B2
7937225	Mishra et al.	May 2011	B2
7957913	Chinitz et al.	Jun 2011	B2
7979215	Sampas	Jul 2011	B2
7996157	Zabeau et al.	Aug 2011	B2
8010295	Magness et al.	Aug 2011	B1
8050870	Heckerman et al.	Nov 2011	B2
8051033	Kenedy et al.	Nov 2011	B2
8078407	Brown	Dec 2011	B1
8095389	Dalton et al.	Jan 2012	B2
8122073	Jung et al.	Feb 2012	B2
8140270	Kingsmore et al.	Mar 2012	B2
8190373	Huang et al.	May 2012	B2
8195415	Fan et al.	Jun 2012	B2
8296116	Solomon	Oct 2012	B2
8315957	Heckerman et al.	Nov 2012	B2
8326648	Kenedy et al.	Dec 2012	B2
8335652	Soykan et al.	Dec 2012	B2
8340950	Avey	Dec 2012	B2
8367333	Gudbjartsson et al.	Feb 2013	B2
8372584	Shoemaker et al.	Feb 2013	B2
8380539	Linder et al.	Feb 2013	B2
8428886	Wong et al.	Apr 2013	B2
8429105	Jacobson	Apr 2013	B2
8463554	Hon et al.	Jun 2013	B2
8489334	Chen et al.	Jul 2013	B2
8510057	Avey et al.	Aug 2013	B1
8515679	Rabinowitz et al.	Aug 2013	B2
8554488	Wigler et al.	Oct 2013	B2
8589175	Glauser et al.	Nov 2013	B2
8589437	Khomenko et al.	Nov 2013	B1
8594944	Piper et al.	Nov 2013	B2
8620594	Silver	Dec 2013	B2
8639446	Stupp	Jan 2014	B1
8639639	Jamil et al.	Jan 2014	B2
8655599	Chinitz et al.	Feb 2014	B2
8676608	Oesterheld et al.	Mar 2014	B2
8700337	Dudley et al.	Apr 2014	B2
8706422	Lo et al.	Apr 2014	B2
8718950	Worthey et al.	May 2014	B2
8725418	Aerts et al.	May 2014	B2
8725422	Halpern et al.	May 2014	B2
8731956	Bejjani et al.	May 2014	B2
8738297	Sorenson et al.	May 2014	B2
8738300	Porreca et al.	May 2014	B2
8793245	Kwete	Jul 2014	B2
8795963	Holm et al.	Aug 2014	B2
8796182	Steinthorsdottir et al.	Aug 2014	B2
8812243	Cardonha et al.	Aug 2014	B2
8814790	Eisenhandler et al.	Aug 2014	B2
8818735	Braun et al.	Aug 2014	B2
8828657	Rafnar et al.	Sep 2014	B2
8855938	Friedlander et al.	Oct 2014	B2
8862410	Hatchwell et al.	Oct 2014	B2
8951735	Stacey et al.	Feb 2015	B2
8954337	Tebbs et al.	Feb 2015	B2
8996318	Beatty et al.	Mar 2015	B2
9002682	Kasabov	Apr 2015	B2
9092391	Stephan et al.	Jul 2015	B2
9098523	Bhola et al.	Aug 2015	B2
9111028	Mrazek et al.	Aug 2015	B2
9128861	Bartha et al.	Sep 2015	B2
9141755	Mizuguchi et al.	Sep 2015	B2
9141913	Kupershmidt et al.	Sep 2015	B2
9165253	Cleary et al.	Oct 2015	B2
9177099	Ganeshalingam et al.	Nov 2015	B2
9183496	Harris et al.	Nov 2015	B2
9201916	Doddavula et al.	Dec 2015	B2
9213944	Do et al.	Dec 2015	B1
9215162	Ganeshalingam et al.	Dec 2015	B2
9218450	Chen et al.	Dec 2015	B2
9228233	Kennedy et al.	Jan 2016	B2
9298804	Nizzari et al.	Mar 2016	B2
9309570	Song et al.	Apr 2016	B2
9418203	Pham et al.	Aug 2016	B2
9449143	Vockley et al.	Sep 2016	B2
9483610	McMillen et al.	Nov 2016	B2
9504428	Gelbman et al.	Nov 2016	B1
9547749	OBrien et al.	Jan 2017	B2
9552458	White et al.	Jan 2017	B2
9589104	Heywood et al.	Mar 2017	B2
9600627	Torkamani et al.	Mar 2017	B2
9633166	Kupershmidt et al.	Apr 2017	B2
9652587	Sanborn et al.	May 2017	B2
9670530	Kostem et al.	Jun 2017	B2
20010034023	Stanton et al.	Oct 2001	A1
20020082869	Anderson	Jun 2002	A1
20020133495	Rienhoff et al.	Sep 2002	A1
20020155467	Escary	Oct 2002	A1
20020187496	Andersson et al.	Dec 2002	A1
20020197632	Moskowitz	Dec 2002	A1
20030092040	Bader et al.	May 2003	A1
20030101000	Bader et al.	May 2003	A1
20030104470	Fors et al.	Jun 2003	A1
20030108938	Pickar et al.	Jun 2003	A1
20030113756	Mertz	Jun 2003	A1
20030138778	Garner et al.	Jul 2003	A1
20030195707	Schork et al.	Oct 2003	A1
20030211504	Fechtel et al.	Nov 2003	A1
20040053251	Pericak-Vance et al.	Mar 2004	A1
20040086888	Kornblith et al.	May 2004	A1
20040115701	Comings et al.	Jun 2004	A1
20040142325	Mintz et al.	Jul 2004	A1
20040146870	Liao et al.	Jul 2004	A1
20040161779	Gingeras	Aug 2004	A1
20040175700	Geesaman	Sep 2004	A1
20040219567	Califano et al.	Nov 2004	A1
20040248092	Vance et al.	Dec 2004	A1
20040249677	Datta et al.	Dec 2004	A1
20040267458	Judson et al.	Dec 2004	A1
20050019787	Berno et al.	Jan 2005	A1
20050064408	Sevon et al.	Mar 2005	A1
20050086035	Peccoud et al.	Apr 2005	A1
20050176031	Sears et al.	Aug 2005	A1
20050191731	Judson et al.	Sep 2005	A1
20050214811	Margulies et al.	Sep 2005	A1
20050250098	Toivonen et al.	Nov 2005	A1
20050256649	Roses	Nov 2005	A1
20050272057	Abrahamsen et al.	Dec 2005	A1
20060173663	Langheier et al.	Aug 2006	A1
20060286566	Lapidus et al.	Dec 2006	A1
20070027636	Rabinowitz	Feb 2007	A1
20070042369	Reese et al.	Feb 2007	A1
20070082353	Hiraoka et al.	Apr 2007	A1
20070112585	Breiter et al.	May 2007	A1
20070174253	Hodnett et al.	Jul 2007	A1
20070196850	Kennedy et al.	Aug 2007	A1
20070276610	Korenberg	Nov 2007	A1
20080091358	Taylor	Apr 2008	A1
20080281818	Tenenbaum et al.	Nov 2008	A1
20080311574	Manne et al.	Dec 2008	A1
20090011407	Liu et al.	Jan 2009	A1
20090012928	Lussier et al.	Jan 2009	A1
20090035279	Thorleifsson et al.	Feb 2009	A1
20090125246	Ruiz Laza	May 2009	A1
20090137402	Wang et al.	May 2009	A1
20090181380	Belouchi et al.	Jul 2009	A1
20090198519	McNamar	Aug 2009	A1
20090240441	Lapidus	Sep 2009	A1
20090299645	Colby et al.	Dec 2009	A1
20100114956	McElfresh et al.	May 2010	A1
20100130526	Glinsky	May 2010	A1
20100143921	Sadee et al.	Jun 2010	A1
20100184037	Plass et al.	Jul 2010	A1
20100216655	Sulem	Aug 2010	A1
20100317726	Figg et al.	Dec 2010	A1
20110004616	Miyao	Jan 2011	A1
20110014607	Jirtle et al.	Jan 2011	A1
20110020320	Gudmundsson et al.	Jan 2011	A1
20110045997	Hernandez et al.	Feb 2011	A1
20110111419	Stefansson et al.	May 2011	A1
20110202486	Fung et al.	Aug 2011	A1
20110212855	Rafnar et al.	Sep 2011	A1
20110230366	Gudmundsson et al.	Sep 2011	A1
20110251243	Tucker et al.	Oct 2011	A1
20110257896	Dowds et al.	Oct 2011	A1
20110287946	Gudmundsson et al.	Nov 2011	A1
20120010866	Ramnarayan	Jan 2012	A1
20120016594	Christman et al.	Jan 2012	A1
20120078901	Conde	Mar 2012	A1
20120109615	Yun et al.	May 2012	A1
20120110013	Conde et al.	May 2012	A1
20120122698	Stacey et al.	May 2012	A1
20120143512	Reese et al.	Jun 2012	A1
20120173153	Elango et al.	Jul 2012	A1
20120191366	Pearson et al.	Jul 2012	A1
20120215459	Stef et al.	Aug 2012	A1
20120215463	Brodzik	Aug 2012	A1
20120231959	Elton et al.	Sep 2012	A1
20120310539	Crockett et al.	Dec 2012	A1
20120330559	Jiang et al.	Dec 2012	A1
20130035864	Stupp et al.	Feb 2013	A1
20130039548	Nielsen et al.	Feb 2013	A1
20130080365	Dewey et al.	Mar 2013	A1
20130090859	Palsson et al.	Apr 2013	A1
20130184161	Kingsmore et al.	Jul 2013	A1
20130184999	Ding	Jul 2013	A1
20130212125	Wierenga et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130224739	Thorleifsson et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130226468	Skinner et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130226621	Van Der Zaag et al.	Aug 2013	A1
20130245958	Forster et al.	Sep 2013	A1
20130246033	Heckerman et al.	Sep 2013	A1
20130259847	Vishnudas et al.	Oct 2013	A1
20130261984	Eberle et al.	Oct 2013	A1
20130273543	Gudmundsson et al.	Oct 2013	A1
20130296175	Rafnar et al.	Nov 2013	A1
20130296193	Choi et al.	Nov 2013	A1
20130297221	Johnson et al.	Nov 2013	A1
20130309666	Deciu et al.	Nov 2013	A1
20130316915	Halpern et al.	Nov 2013	A1
20130332081	Reese et al.	Dec 2013	A1
20130338012	Sulem et al.	Dec 2013	A1
20130345066	Brinza et al.	Dec 2013	A1
20140024029	Mrazek	Jan 2014	A1
20140040264	Varadan et al.	Feb 2014	A1
20140046696	Higgins et al.	Feb 2014	A1
20140046926	Walton	Feb 2014	A1
20140066317	Talasaz	Mar 2014	A1
20140067355	Noto et al.	Mar 2014	A1
20140087961	Sulem et al.	Mar 2014	A1
20140088942	Li et al.	Mar 2014	A1
20140089009	Van Criekinge et al.	Mar 2014	A1
20140100792	Deciu et al.	Apr 2014	A1
20140114582	Mittelman et al.	Apr 2014	A1
20140114584	Bruestle	Apr 2014	A1
20140115515	Adams et al.	Apr 2014	A1
20140143188	Mackey et al.	May 2014	A1
20140153801	Sarkozy et al.	Jun 2014	A1
20140200824	Pancoska	Jul 2014	A1
20140206006	Xu et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140214331	Kowalczyk et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140214333	Plattner et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140214334	Plattner et al.	Jul 2014	A1
20140222349	Higgins et al.	Aug 2014	A1
20140229117	Halpern et al.	Aug 2014	A1
20140229495	Makkapati et al.	Aug 2014	A1
20140235456	Garner, Jr. et al.	Aug 2014	A1
20140244556	Saleh et al.	Aug 2014	A1
20140247184	Wendel	Sep 2014	A1
20140248692	Lagace et al.	Sep 2014	A1
20140249764	Kumar et al.	Sep 2014	A1
20140274745	Chen et al.	Sep 2014	A1
20140278133	Chen et al.	Sep 2014	A1
20140278461	Artz	Sep 2014	A1
20140287934	Szelinger et al.	Sep 2014	A1
20140303901	Sadeh	Oct 2014	A1
20140310215	Trakadis	Oct 2014	A1
20140350954	Ellis et al.	Nov 2014	A1
20140359422	Bassett, Jr. et al.	Dec 2014	A1
20140365243	Varadan et al.	Dec 2014	A1
20140372953	Laurance	Dec 2014	A1
20150024948	Dugas et al.	Jan 2015	A1
20150046191	Futscher de Deus et al.	Feb 2015	A1
20150051116	Kim	Feb 2015	A1
20150056619	Li et al.	Feb 2015	A1
20150066381	Kural	Mar 2015	A1
20150066385	Schnall-Levin et al.	Mar 2015	A1
20150073719	Glynias et al.	Mar 2015	A1
20150073724	Ashutosh et al.	Mar 2015	A1
20150081323	Jackson et al.	Mar 2015	A1
20150095064	Schols	Apr 2015	A1
20150105267	Shendure et al.	Apr 2015	A1
20150105270	Floratos	Apr 2015	A1
20150120322	Hoffman et al.	Apr 2015	A1
20150142331	Beim et al.	May 2015	A1
20150169828	Spector	Jun 2015	A1
20150178445	Cibulskis et al.	Jun 2015	A1
20150186596	Chakrabarti et al.	Jul 2015	A1
20150193578	Kiel et al.	Jul 2015	A1
20150197785	Carter et al.	Jul 2015	A1
20150199472	Kural	Jul 2015	A1
20150199473	Kural	Jul 2015	A1
20150199474	Kural	Jul 2015	A1
20150199475	Kural	Jul 2015	A1
20150205914	Richards et al.	Jul 2015	A1
20150220687	An	Aug 2015	A1
20150227697	Nelson et al.	Aug 2015	A1
20150228041	Naley et al.	Aug 2015	A1
20150247184	Vermeesch et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150248522	Guturu et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150248525	Ury et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150254397	Rogan et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150261913	Dewey et al.	Sep 2015	A1
20150294063	Kalalakaran et al.	Oct 2015	A1
20150310163	Kingsmore et al.	Oct 2015	A1
20150310165	Mann	Oct 2015	A1
20150310228	Benz et al.	Oct 2015	A1
20150315645	Gaasterland et al.	Nov 2015	A1
20150317432	Silver et al.	Nov 2015	A1
20150324519	Liu	Nov 2015	A1
20150347676	Zhao et al.	Dec 2015	A1
20150356243	Andreassen et al.	Dec 2015	A1
20150363549	Kimura	Dec 2015	A1
20150367145	Sjolund et al.	Dec 2015	A1
20150376700	Schnall-Levin et al.	Dec 2015	A1
20150379193	Bassett, Jr. et al.	Dec 2015	A1
20160004814	Stamatoyannopoulos	Jan 2016	A1
20160017412	Srinivasan et al.	Jan 2016	A1
20160024591	Xu et al.	Jan 2016	A1
20160026753	Krishnaswami et al.	Jan 2016	A1
20160026772	Plante et al.	Jan 2016	A1
20160034667	Rosenblatt et al.	Feb 2016	A1
20160040239	Sadee et al.	Feb 2016	A1
20160048608	Frieden et al.	Feb 2016	A1
20160070854	Wong et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160070855	Sanborn et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160078094	Popescu et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160078169	Namkung et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160092631	Yandell et al.	Mar 2016	A1
20160098519	Zwir	Apr 2016	A1
20160103919	Boyce	Apr 2016	A1
20160140289	Gibiansky et al.	May 2016	A1
20160153032	Rosenthal et al.	Jun 2016	A9
20160154928	Zeskind et al.	Jun 2016	A1
20160186253	Talasaz et al.	Jun 2016	A1
20160196382	Kim et al.	Jul 2016	A1
20160201134	Liao et al.	Jul 2016	A1
20160203196	Schnall-Levin et al.	Jul 2016	A1
20160203287	Chen et al.	Jul 2016	A1
20160210401	Kim et al.	Jul 2016	A1
20160224722	Reese et al.	Aug 2016	A1
20160224730	Yu et al.	Aug 2016	A1
20160232291	Kyriazopoulou-Panagiotopoulou et al.	Aug 2016	A1
20160239603	Brown	Aug 2016	A1
20160253452	Karbassi et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160253770	Downs et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160259880	Semenyuk	Sep 2016	A1
20160259886	Li et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160273049	Velculescu et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160281166	Bhattacharjee et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160283407	Van Rooyen et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160283484	Chandratillake et al.	Sep 2016	A1
20160298185	Shukla et al.	Oct 2016	A1
20160300012	Barber et al.	Oct 2016	A1
20160300013	Ashutosh et al.	Oct 2016	A1
20160306921	Kural	Oct 2016	A1
20160314245	Silver et al.	Oct 2016	A1
20160319335	Deciu et al.	Nov 2016	A1
20160333411	Harper	Nov 2016	A1
20160340722	Platt	Nov 2016	A1
20160342732	Popovic et al.	Nov 2016	A1
20160342733	Reid et al.	Nov 2016	A1
20160342737	Kaye	Nov 2016	A1
20160370961	Merel	Dec 2016	A1
20160371429	Patil et al.	Dec 2016	A1
20160371431	Haque et al.	Dec 2016	A1
20160374600	Short et al.	Dec 2016	A1
20170004256	Miyashita et al.	Jan 2017	A1
20170017717	Kimura	Jan 2017	A1
20170017752	Noto et al.	Jan 2017	A1
20170032081	Agrawal et al.	Feb 2017	A1
20170061070	Kingsmore et al.	Mar 2017	A1
20170068826	Dimitrova et al.	Mar 2017	A1
20170073755	Tiwari et al.	Mar 2017	A1
20170076046	Barnes et al.	Mar 2017	A1
20170076050	Soon-Shiong	Mar 2017	A1
20170091382	Yun et al.	Mar 2017	A1
20170098053	Pandey et al.	Apr 2017	A1
20170107576	Babiarz et al.	Apr 2017	A1
20170109471	Ariyaratne et al.	Apr 2017	A1
20170116379	Scott et al.	Apr 2017	A1
20170132357	Brewerton et al.	May 2017	A1
20170132362	Skinner et al.	May 2017	A1
20170154154	Daly et al.	Jun 2017	A1
20170169160	Hu et al.	Jun 2017	A1
20170169163	Shomron et al.	Jun 2017	A1
20170175206	Xu et al.	Jun 2017	A1
20170198348	Namkung	Jul 2017	A1
20170199960	Ghose et al.	Jul 2017	A1
20170202519	Kuo	Jul 2017	A1
20170211205	Murray	Jul 2017	A1
20170213011	Hoffman et al.	Jul 2017	A1
20170213127	Duncan	Jul 2017	A1
20170286594	Reid et al.	Oct 2017	A1

Foreign Referenced Citations (41)

Number	Date	Country
WO-2012006291	Jan 2012	WO
WO-2012051346	Apr 2012	WO
WO-2013102441	Jul 2013	WO
WO-2014121128	Aug 2014	WO
WO-2014145234	Sep 2014	WO
WO-2014145503	Sep 2014	WO
WO-2015013191	Jan 2015	WO
WO-2015051163	Apr 2015	WO
WO-2015148776	Oct 2015	WO
WO-2015173435	Nov 2015	WO
WO-2015191562	Dec 2015	WO
WO-2015184404	Dec 2015	WO
WO-2016038220	Mar 2016	WO
WO-2016055971	Apr 2016	WO
WO-2016061570	Apr 2016	WO
WO-2016062713	Apr 2016	WO
WO-2016064995	Apr 2016	WO
WO-2016083949	Jun 2016	WO
WO-2016122318	Aug 2016	WO
WO-2016124600	Aug 2016	WO
WO-2016139534	Sep 2016	WO
WO-2016141127	Sep 2016	WO
WO-2016141214	Sep 2016	WO
WO-2016154254	Sep 2016	WO
WO-2016154584	Sep 2016	WO
WO-2016172801	Nov 2016	WO
WO-2016179049	Nov 2016	WO
WO-2016183659	Nov 2016	WO
WO-2016187051	Nov 2016	WO
WO-2016201564	Dec 2016	WO
WO-2016203457	Dec 2016	WO
WO-2017009372	Jan 2017	WO
WO-2017024138	Feb 2017	WO
WO-2017042831	Mar 2017	WO
WO-2017049214	Mar 2017	WO
WO-2017064142	Apr 2017	WO
WO-2017065959	Apr 2017	WO
WO-2017100794	Jun 2017	WO
WO-2017116123	Jul 2017	WO
WO-2017120556	Jul 2017	WO
WO-2017139801	Aug 2017	WO

Non-Patent Literature Citations (146)

Entry
“Picard Metrics Definitions” (2014) [retrieved on line Dec. 24, 2021] Retrieved from the Internet <URL: http//broadinstitute.github.io/picard/picardmetric-definitions.html>.
Illumina, Technical Note: Informatics, Human, W. G. S. “Sequencing Coverage Calculation Methods for Human Whole-Genome Sequencing.” (2014).
Robinson, J.T., “The K-D-B-Tree: A Search Structure for large Multidimensional Dynamic Indexes”, ProceedingSIGMOD '81 Proceedings of the 1981 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data pp. 10-18.
Mahmud et al., “Fast MCMC sampling for hidden markov models to determine copy number variations” BMC Bioinformatics 2011 12:428.
Kd-trees CMSC 420 (2014) [retrieved on Jan. 19, 2018] Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://www.cs.cmu.edu/-ckingsf/u bioinfo-lectures/kdtrees.pdf>.
K-d tree, Wikipedia (2018) [retrieved on Apr. 25, 2018] Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-d_tree>.
Response to Non Final was mailed on Oct. 23, 2017 to the USPTO for U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,949, filed May 18, 2015, and published as US 2016-0342733 A1 on Nov. 24, 2016 (Applicant-Jeffrey Reid ) (30 pages).
Final Rejection was issued on Jan. 25, 2018 by the USPTO for U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,949, filed May 18, 2015, and published as US 2016-0342733 A1 on Nov. 24, 2016 (Applicant—Jeffrey Reid ) (10 pages).
U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,949 (2016/0342733), filed May 18, 2015 (Nov. 24, 2016), Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
U.S. Appl. No. 62/294,669, filed Feb. 12, 2016, Evan Maxwell et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
U.S. Appl. No. 62/314,684, filed Mar. 29, 2016, Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
U.S. Appl. No. 62/362,660, filed Jul. 15, 2016, Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
U.S. Appl. No. 62/4404,912, filed Oct. 6, 2016, Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.)
U.S. Appl. No. 62/467,547, filed Mar. 6, 2017, Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/473,302 (2017/0286594), filed Mar. 29, 2017 (Oct. 5, 2017), Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
PCT, PCT/US2016/032484 (WO 2016/187051), May 13, 2016 (Nov. 24, 2016,), Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
PCT, PCT/US2017/017734 (WO 2017/139801), Feb. 13, 2017 (Aug. 17, 2017), Evan Maxwell et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
PCT, PCT/US2017/024810 (WO 2017/172958), Mar. 29, 2017 (Oct. 5, 2017), Jeffrey Reid et al. (Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.).
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed on Jul. 21, 2017 by the International Searching Authority for International Patent Application No. PCT/US2017/017734, which was filed on Feb. 13, 2017 and published as WO 2017/139801 on Aug. 17, 2017 (Inventor—Maxwell et al.; Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; (13 pages).
Office Action was issued on Nov. 26, 2019 by the Japanese Patent Office for JP Application No. 2018-542281, filed on Feb. 13, 2017 and published as JP 2019-512122 on May 9, 2019 (Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (Original—3 Pages //Translation—3 Pages).
Office Action was issued on Jan. 21, 2020 by the Japanese Patent Office for JP Application No. 2017-559843, filed on May 13, 2016 and published as JP 2018-523198 on Aug. 16, 2018 (Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (Original—4 Pages //Translation—3 Pages).
Office Action was issued on Feb. 3, 2020 by the Russian Patent Office for RU Application No. 2017143983, filed on May 13, 2016 (Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (4 Pages).
Office Action was issued on Sep. 24, 2020 by the New Zealand Patent Office for NZ Application No. 745249, filed on Feb. 13, 2017 (Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (5 pages).
Van Steenhouse, “Identifying Chromosomal Abnormalities Using Infinium SNP BeadChips,” p. 1-21, Sep. 2010.
Weissbein et al. “Analysis of chromosomal aberrations and recombination by allelic bias in RNA-Seq,” Nature Communications, 7:121444, p. 1-8, Jul. 7, 2016.
Office Action was issued on May 31, 2020 by the Israeli Patent Office for IL Application No. 261216, filed on Feb. 13, 2017 (Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (Original—3 Pages //Translation—3 Pages).
Office Action was issued on Feb. 5, 2021 by the Canadian Patent Office for CA Application No. 3018186, filed on Mar. 29, 2017 (Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) (4 pages).
Backenroth et al. (2014) CANOES: detecting rare copy number variants from whole exome sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 42(12): e97 (9 pages).
Baigent, S. et al., Efficacy and Safety of Cholesterol-Lowering Treatment: Prospective Meta-Analysis of Data from 90,056 Participants in 14 Randomised Trials of Statins. Lancet. 2005; 366(9493): 1267-78.
Benjamini, Yuval, and Speed, Terence P. (2012) Summarizing and correcting the GC content bias in high-throughput sequencing, Nucleic Acids Res, 40 (10): e72 (14 pages).
Benn, M. et al., PCSK9 R46L, Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels, and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55:2833-42.
Berg, J.S. et al., An Informatics Approach to Analyzing the Incidentalome. Genet Med. 2013; 15(1):36-44.
Blekhman, R. et al., Natural Selection on Genes that Underline Human Disease Susceptibility. Curr Biol. 2008; 18(12):883-9.
Boettger, L.M. et al., Recurring Exon Deletions in the HP (haptoglobin) Gene Contribute to Lower Blood Cholesterol Levels. Nat Genet. 2016; 48:359-66.
Brand, H. et al., Paired-Duplication Signatures Mark Cryptic Inversions and Other Complex Structural Variation. Am J Hum Genet. 2015; 97(1):170-6.
Brundert, M. et al., Scavenger Receptor CD36 Mediates Uptake of High Density Lipoproteins in Mice and by Cultured Cells. J Lipid Res. 2011; 52(4):745-58.
Carey et al., The Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative: an Electronic Health Record-Linked Biobank for Precision Medicine Research. Genes in Medicine. 2016; 18(9):906-13.
Carvalho et al., Inverted Genomic Segments and Complex Triplication Rearrangements are mediated by Inverted Repeats in the Human Genome. Nat Genet. 2011; 43(11):1074-81.
Chance, P.F. et al., DNA Deletion Associated with Hereditary Neuropathy with Liability to Pressure Palsies. Cell. 1993; 72(1):143-51.
Chance, P.F. et al., Two Autosomal Dominant Neuropathies Result from Reciprocal DNA Duplication/Deletion of a Region on Chromosome 17. Hum Mol Genet. 1994; 3:223-8.
Chang, C.C. et al., Second-Generation PLINK: Rising to the Challenge of Larger and Richer Datasets. Gigascience. 2015; 4:7 (16 pages).
Choi, M. et al., Genetic Diagnosis by Whole Exome Capture and Massively Parallel DNA Sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009; 106(45):19096-101.
Chong, J.X. et al., The Genetic Basis of Mandelian Phenotypes: Discoveries, Challenges, and Opportunities. Am J Hum Genet. 2015; 97(2):199-215.
Chou, J.Y et al., Type I Glycogen Storage Diseases: Disorders of the Glucose-6-Phosphatase Complex. Curr Mol Med. 2002; 2(2):121-43.
Cingolani, P. et al., A Program for Annotating and Predicting the Effects of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, SnpEff. Fly (Austin). 2012; 6(2):80-92.
Coe et al. (2014) Refining analyses of copy number variation identities specific genes associated with developmental delay. Nat Genet, 46 (10): 1063-71.
Cohen, J.C. et al., Sequence Variations in PCCK9, Low LDL, and Protection Against Coronary Heart Disease. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(12): 1264-72.
Conrad, D.F. et al., Origins and Functional Impact of Copy Number variation in the Human Genome. Nature. 2010; 464(7289):704-12.
Coram, M.A., Genome-wide Characterization of Shared and Distant Genetic Components that Influence Blood Lipid Levels in Ethnically Diverse Human Populations. Am J Hum Genet. 2013; 92:904.
De Cid, R. et al., Deletion of the Late Cornified Envelope (LCE) 3B and 3C Genes as a Susceptibility Factor for Psoriasis. Nat Genet. 2009; 41(2):211-5.
Denny, J.C. et al., Systematic Comparison of Phenome-wide Association Study of Electronic Medical Record Data and Genome-wide Association Study Data. Nature Biotechnol. 2013; 31(12):1102-11.
DiVincenzo, C. et al., The Allelic Spectrum of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease in Over 17,000 Individuals with Neuropathy. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2014; 2(6):522-9.
Do, R. et al., Exome Sequencing Identifies Rare LDLR and APOA5 Alleles Conferring Risk for Myocardial Infarction. Nature. 2015; 518(7537):102-6.
Elbers, C.C. et al., Gene-Centric Meta-Analysis of Lipid Traits in African, East Asian and Hispanic Populations. PLoS One. 2012; 7(12):e50198 (14 pages).
Ferreira, M.A. and S.M. Purcell, The Multivariate Test of Association. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(1):132-3.
Fromer et al., (2012) “Discovery and statistical genotyping of copy-number variation from whole-exome sequencing depth,” Am J Hum Genet 91 (4), 597-607.
Georgi, B. et al., From Mouse to Human: Evolutionary Genomics Analysis of Human Orthologs of Essential Genes. PLoS Genet. 2013; 9(5):e1003484 (10 pages).
Girirajan, S. et al., A Recurrent 16p12.1 Microdeletion Supports a Two-Hit Model for Severe Developmental Delay. Nat Genet. 2010; 42:203-9.
Gottesman, O. et al., Can Genetic Pleiotropy Replicate Common Clinical Constellations of Cardiovascular Disease and Risk? PLoS One. 2012; 7(9):e46419 (9 pages).
Green, R.C. et al., ACMG Recommendations for Reporting of Incidental Findings in Clinical Exome and Genome Sequencing. Genet Med. 2013; 15(7):565-74.
Gudbjartsson, D.F. et al., Large-Scale Whole-Genome Sequencing of the Icelandic Population. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(5):435-44.
Handsaker et al. (2015) Large multiallelic copy No. variations in humans. Nat Genet, 47 (3), 296-303.
Heinzen, E.L. et al., Rare Deletions at 16p13.11 Predispose to a Diverse Spectrum of Sporadic Epilepsy Syndromes. Am J Hum Genet. 2010; 86(5):707-18.
Hirayasu, K. and H. Arase, Functional and Genetic Diversity of Leukocyte Immunoglobulin-like Receptor and Implication for Disease Associations. J Hum Genet. 2015; 60(11):703-8.
Holm, H. et al., A Rare Variant in MYH6 is Associated with High Risk of Sick Sinus Syndrome. Nat Genet. 2011; 43:316-20.
Hoogendijk, J.E. et al., De-novo Mutation in Hereditary Motor and Sensory Neuropathy Type I. Lancet. 1992; 339(8801):1081-2.
Huff, C.D. et al., Maximum-likelihood Estimation of Recent Shared Ancestry (ERSA). Genome Res. 2011; 21(5):768-74.
Hughes, A.E. et al., A Common CFH Haplotype, with Deletion of CFHR1 and CFHR3, is Associated with Lower Risk of Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Nat Genet. 2006; 38(10):1173.
Kathiresan, S., A PCSK9 Missense Variant Associated with a Reduced Risk of Early-Onset Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(21):2299-300.
Kloosterman, W.P. et al., Characteristics of De Novo Structural Changes in the Human Genome. Genome Res. 2015; 25:792-801.
Korbel, J.O. et al., Paired-End Mapping Reveals Extensive Structural Variation in the Human Genome. Science. 2007; 318(5849):420-6.
Krumm et al. (2012) Copy number variation detection and genotyping from exome sequence data. Genome Res, 22 (8), 1525-32.
Landrum, M.J. et al., ClinVar: Public Archive of Relationships Among Sequence Variation and Human Phenotype. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42:D980-5.
Lange, L.A. et al., Whole-exome Sequencing Identifies Rare and Low-Frequency Coding Variants Associated with LDL Cholesterol. Am J Hum Genet. 2014; 94(2):233-45.
Layer, R.M. et al., LUMPY: A Probabilistic Framework for Structural Variant Discovery. Genome Biol. 2014; 15:R84 (19 pages).
Lee, S. et al., Rare-Variant Association Analysis: Study Designs and Statistical Tests. Am J Hum Genet. 2014; 95(1):5-23.
Leigh, S.E. et al., Update and Analysis of the University College London Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor Familial Hypercholesterolemia Database. Ann Hum Genet. 2008; 72(4):485-98.
Lek, M. et al., Analysis of Protein-Coding Genetics Variation in 60,706 Humans. Nature. 2016; 536:285-91.
Li, A.H. et al., Analysis of Loss-of-Function Variants and 20 Risk Factor Phenotypes in 8,554 Individuals Identifies Loci Influencing chronic Disease. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(6):640-2.
Li, B. and S.M. Leal, Methods for Detecting Associations with Rare Variants for Common Diseases: Application to Analysis of Sequence Data. Am J Hum Genet. 2008; 83(3):311-21.
Li, H. and R. Durbin, Fast and Accurate Short Read Alignment with Burrows-Wheeler Transform. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(14):1754-60.
Li, H. et al., The Sequence Alignment/Map Format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(16):2078-9.
Lim, E.T. et al., Distribution and Medical Impact of Loss-of-function Variants in the Finnish Founder Population. PLoS Genet. 2014; 10(7):e1004494 (12 pages).
Liu, P. et al., Mechanisms for Recurrent and Complex Human Genomic Rearrangements. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2012; 22(3):211-20.
Loh, P.R. et al., Efficient Bayesian Mixed Model Analysis Increases Association Power in Large Cohorts. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(3):284-90.
Lupski, J.R. et al., DNA Duplication Associated with Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease Type 1A. Cell. 1991; 66(2):219-32.
Lupski, J.R., Structural Variation Mutagenesis of the Human Genome: Impact on Disease and Evolution. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2015; 56(5):419-36.
MacArthur, D.G. et al., A Systematic Survey of Loss-Function Variants in Human Protein-Coding Genes. Science. 2012; 335(6070):823-8.
MacDonald, J.R. et al., The Database of Genomic Variants: a Curated Collection of Structural Variation in the Human Genome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 42(Database Issue):D986-92.
Mahmud, P. et al., Fast MCMC Sampling for Hidden Markov Models to Determine Copy Number Variations. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011; 12(1):428 (17 pages).
McCarthy, S.E. et al., Microduplications of 16p11.2 are Associated with Schizophrenia. Nat Genet. 2009; 41(11):1223-7.
McKenna, A. et al., The Genome Analysis Toolkit: A MapReduce Framework for Analyzing Next-Generation DNA Sequencing Data. Genome Res. 2010; 20(9):1297-303.
Mefford, H.C. et al., Recurrent Rearrangements of Chromosome 1q21.1 and Variable Pediatric Phenotypes. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:1685-99.
Meretoja, P. et al., Epidemiology of Hereditary Neuropathy with Liability to Pressure Palsies (HNPP) in South Western Finland. Neuromuscul Disord. 1997; 7(8):529-32.
Mills, R.E. et al., Mapping Copy Number Variation by Population-Scale Genome Sequencing. Nature. 2011; 470: 59-65.
Myocardial Infarction Genetics Consortium Investigators, Inactivating Mutations in NPC1L1 and Protection from Coronary Heart Disease. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371:2072.
Newman, S. et al., Next-Generation Sequencing of Duplication CNVs reseals that Most Are Tandem and Some Create Fusion Genes in Breakpoints. Am J Hum Genet. 2015; 96(2):208.
O'Dushlaine, C.T. et al., Population Structure and Genome-Wide Patterns of Variation in Ireland and Britain. Eur J Hum Genet. 2010; 18(11):1248-54.
Ordóñez, D. et al., Multiple Sclerosis Associates with LILRA3 Deletion in Spanish Patients. Genes and Immunity. 2009; 10:579.
Pabinger, S. et al.; A Survey of Tools for Variant Analysis of Next-Generation Genome Sequencing Data. Briefings Bioinformatics. 2013; 15(2):256-78.
Packer, J.S. et al., CLAMMS: A Scalable Algorithm for Calling Common and Rare Copy Number Variants from Exome Sequencing Data. Bioinformatics. 2016; 32(1):133-5.
Packer, J.S. et al., Supplementary Materials for CLAMMS: A Scalable Algorithm for Calling Common and Rare Copy Number Variants from Exome Sequencing Data. Bioinformatics Advance Access. 2015 (24 pages).
Peloso, G.M. et al., Association of Low-Frequency and Rare Coding-Sequence Variants with Blood Lipids and Coronary Heart Disease in 56,000 Whites and Blacks. Am J Hum Genet. 2014; 94(2):223.
Pinto, D. et al., Comprehensive Assessment of Array-Based Platforms and Calling Algorithms for Detection of Copy Number Variants. Nature Biotechnol. 2011; 29(6):512-20.
Plagnol et al. (2012) A robust model for read count data in exome sequencing experiments and implications for copy number variant calling. Bioinformatics, 28 (21), 2747-54.
Pollin, T.I. et al., A Null Mutation in Human APOC3 Confers a Favorable Plasma Lipid Profile and Apparent Cardioprotection. Science. 2008; 322(5908):1702-5.
Psaty, B.M. et al., Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) Consortium. Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics. 2009; 2(1): 73-80.
Raal, F.J., Mipomersen, an Apolipoprotein B Synthesis Inhibitor, for Lowering of LDL Cholesterol Concentrations in Patients with Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolaemia: A Randomised, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. Lancet. 2010; 375(9719): 998-1006.
Rahman, N., Realizing the Promise of Cancer Predisposition Genes. Nature. 2014; 505(7483): 302-8.
Reid, J.G. et al., Launching Genomics into the Cloud: Deployment of Mercury, a Next Generation Sequence Analysis Pipeline. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014; 15:30 (11 pages).
Richards, S. 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(5):405-24.
Sham, P.C. and Purcell, S.M., Statistical Power and Significance Testing in Large-Scale Genetic Studies. Nature Rev Genet. 2014; 15(5):335-46.
Skre, H., Genetic and Clinical Aspects of Charcot-Marie-Tooth's Disease. Clin Genet. 1974; 6(2): 98-118.
Staples, J. et al., PRIMUS: Rapid Reconstruction of Pedigrees from Genome-wide Estimates of Identity by Descent. Am J Hum Genet. 2014; 95(5): 553-64.
Steinberg, S. et al., Loss-of-Function Variants in ABCA7 Confer Risk of Alzheimer's Disease. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(5):445-7.
Stenson et al. (2012) The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) and its exploitation in the fields of personalized genomics and molecular evolution. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0113s39.
Sudmant, P.H. et al., An Integrated Map of Structural Variation in 2,504 Human Genomes. Nature. 2015; 526(7571):75-81.
Sulem, P. et al., Identification of a Large Set of Rare Complete Human Knockouts. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(5):448-52.
Surakka et al., The Impact of Low-Frequency and Rare Variants on Lipid Levels. Nat Genet. 2015; 47(6):589-97.
Szigeto, K. and J.R. Lupski, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease. Eur J Hum Genet. 2009; 17(6):703-10.
Tennessen, J.A. et al., Evolution and Functional Impact of Rare Coding Variation from Deep Sequencing of Human Exomes. Science. 2012; 337(6090):64-9.
Teslovich, T.M. et al., Biological, Clinical and Population Relevance of 95 Loci for Blood Lipids. Nature. 2010; 466(7307): 707-13.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium et al., An Integrated Map of Genetic Variation from 1,092 Human Genomes. Nature. 2012; 491(7422):56-65.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, A Map of Human Genome Variation from Population-Scale Sequencing. Nature. 2010; 467(7319):1061-73.
The UK10K Consortium, The UK10K Project Identifies Rare Variants in Health and Disease. Nature. 2015; 526(7571):82-90.
Thomas, G.S. et al., Mipomersen, an Apolipoprotein B Synthesis Inhibitor, Reduces Atherogenic Lipoproteins in Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia at High Cardiovascular Risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(23): 2178-84.
Turner, D.J. et al., Gremline Rates of de Novo Meiotic Deletions and Duplications Causing Several Genomic Disorders. Nat Genet. 2008; 40(1): 90-5.
Valenzuela et al., High-throughput Engineering of the Mouse Genome Coupled with High-resolution Expression Analysis. Nat Biotechnol. 2003; 21(6): 652-9.
van bon, B.W. et al., Further Delineation of the 15q13 Microdeletion and Duplication Syndromes: a Clinical Spectrum Varying from Non-Pathogenic to a Severe Outcome. J Med Genet. 2009; 46(8):511-23.
van der Sluis, S. et al., TATES: Efficient Multivariate Genotype-Phenotype Analysis for Genome-Wide Association Studies. PLoS Genetics. 2013; 9(1):e1003235 (9 pages).
Visscher, P.M. et al., Five Years of GWAS Discovery. Am J Hum Genet. 2012; 90(1): 7-24.
Wang et al., Copy Number Variation Detection Using Next Generation Sequencing Read Counts, BMC Bioinformatics, 15: 109 (2014).
Wang, K. et al., PennCNV: An Integrated Hidden Markov Model Designed for High-Resolution Copy Number Variation Detection in Whole-Genome SNP Genotyping Data. Genome Res. 2007; 17(11): 1665-74.
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Genome-Wide Association Study of 14,000 Cases of Seven Common Diseases and 3,000 Shared Controls. Nature. 2007; 447(7145): 661-78.
Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, Genome-Wide Association Study of CNVs in 16,000 Cases of Eight Common Diseases and 3,000 Shared Controls. Nature. 2010; 464: 713-20.
Welty, F.K., Hypobetalipoproteinemia and Abetalipoproteinemia. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2014; 25(3): 161-8.
Wishart, D.S. et al., DrugBank: A Comprehensive Resource for in Silico Drug Discovery and Exploration. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006; 34(Database Issue): D668-72.
Wu, M.C. et al., Rare-Variant Association Testing for Sequencing data with the Sequence Kernet Association Test. Am J Hum Genet. 2011; 89(1): 82-93.
Yang, J. et al., GCTA: A Tool for Genome-wide Complex Trait Analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2011; 88(1): 76-82.
Yang, Y. et al., Molecular Findings Among Patients Referred for Clinical Whole-Exome Sequencing. JAMA. 2014; 312:1870.
Ye, K. et al., Pindel: A Pattern Growth Approach to Detect Break Points of Large Deletions and Medium Sized Insertions from Paired-end Short Reads. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(21): 2865-71.
Zhang, F. et al., Copy Number Variation in Human Health, Disease, and Evolution. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2009; 10: 451-81.
Zhao, M. et al., Computational Tools for Copy Number Variation (CNV) Detection Using Next-Generation Sequencing Data: Features and Perspectives. BMC Bioninformatics. 2013; 14(Suppl 11): 1-16.
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed on Aug. 17, 2016 by the International Searching Authority for Patent Application No. PCT/2016/032484, which was filed on May 13, 2016 and published as WO 2016/187051 (Inventor—Reid et al.; Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc .; (8 pages).
Non-Final Office Action issued on Jun. 22, 2017 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for U.S. Appl. No. 14/714,949, which was filed on May 18, 2015 and published as US 2016/0342733 on Nov. 24, 2016 (Inventor—Reid et al.; Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; (9 pages).
International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed on Sep. 4, 2017 for Patent Application No. PCT/US2017/024810, which was filed on Mar. 29, 2017 and published as WO 2017/172958 on Oct. 5, 2017 (Inventor—Reid et al.; Applicant—Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; (18 pages).

Related Publications (1)

	Number	Date	Country
	20170233806 A1	Aug 2017	US

Provisional Applications (1)

	Number	Date	Country
	62294669	Feb 2016	US

Methods and systems for detection of abnormal karyotypes

Information

Patent Number

Date Filed

Date Issued

Inventors

Original Assignees

Examiners

Agents

CPC

Field of Search

US

International Classifications

Term Extension

Abstract