Objective To assess the benefits and limitations of whole genome sequencing (WGS) compared to exome sequencing (ES) or multigene panel (MGP) in the molecular diagnosis of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEE). Methods We performed WGS of 30 comprehensively phenotyped DEE patient trios that were undiagnosed after first-tier testing, including chromosomal microarray and either research ES (n = 15) or diagnostic MGP (n = 15). Results Eight diagnoses were made in the 15 individuals who received prior ES (53%): 3 individuals had complex structural variants; 5 had ES-detectable variants, which now had additional evidence for pathogenicity. Eleven diagnoses were made in the 15 MGP-negative individuals (68%); the majority (n = 10) involved genes not included in the panel, particularly in individuals with postneonatal onset of seizures and those with more complex presentations including movement disorders, dysmorphic features, or multiorgan involvement. A total of 42% of diagnoses were autosomal recessive or X-chromosome linked. Conclusion WGS was able to improve diagnostic yield over ES primarily through the detection of complex structural variants (n = 3). The higher diagnostic yield was otherwise better attributed to the power of re-analysis rather than inherent advantages of the WGS platform. Additional research is required to assist in the assessment of pathogenicity of novel noncoding and complex structural variants and further improve diagnostic yield for patients with DEE and other neurogenetic disorders.

Genomic sequencing technology allows for identification of reproductive couples with an increased chance, as compared with that in the general population, of having a child with an autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic condition. We investigated the feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes of a nationwide, couple-based genetic carrier screening program in Australia as part of the Mackenzie's Mission project. Health care providers offered screening to persons before pregnancy or early in pregnancy. The results obtained from testing at least 1281 genes were provided to the reproductive couples. We aimed to ascertain the psychosocial effects on participants, the acceptability of screening to all participants, and the reproductive choices of persons identified as having an increased chance of having a child with a condition for which we screened. Among 10,038 reproductive couples enrolled in the study, 9107 (90.7%) completed screening, and 175 (1.9%) were newly identified as having an increased chance of having a child with a genetic condition for which we screened. These conditions involved pathogenic variants in 90 different genes; 74.3% of the conditions were autosomal recessive. Three months after receiving the results, 76.6% of the couples with a newly identified increased chance had used or planned to use reproductive interventions to avoid having an affected child. Those newly identified as having an increased chance had greater anxiety than those with a low chance. The median level of decisional regret was low in all result groups, and 98.9% of participants perceived screening to be acceptable. Couple-based reproductive genetic carrier screening was largely acceptable to participants and was used to inform reproductive decision making. The delivery of screening to a diverse and geographically dispersed population was feasible. (Funded by the Medical Research Future Fund of the Australian government; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04157595.).

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie’s Mission—the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie’s Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.