Paeds Vivas · genetics-dysmorphology-and-metabolism
Chromosomal microarray, exome and genome sequencing — branching viva
Viva on the genomic resolution ladder, tiered test selection, variant interpretation, secondary findings, and rapid sequencing in the critically ill infant.
On this page & tools
Target exams
Opening stem
You are the paediatric registrar in clinical genetics clinic. A four-year-old with unexplained global developmental delay has a normal chromosomal microarray. The parents ask what testing comes next. Talk me through your approach. [1]
Branch A — The resolution ladder
Examiner: What is the resolution ladder, and why does it matter? [1]
Strong answer: The platforms climb a resolution ladder. A karyotype resolves whole chromosomes at the megabase level and remains the test for a balanced rearrangement. A chromosomal microarray resolves copy-number variants down to tens of kilobases but misses single-base changes. Whole-exome sequencing reads the coding single-nucleotide variants; whole-genome sequencing reads the entire genome including non-coding, structural and repeat-expansion variants. Resolution rises as you climb, and so does the burden of variants of uncertain significance. The ladder matters because each platform answers a different question and has a different blind spot. [1] [2]
Branch B — Why a normal microarray is not the end
Examiner: The microarray is normal. Does that exclude a genetic cause? [1]
Strong answer: No. A normal microarray excludes only the common copy-number causes. It does not detect single-nucleotide variants, repeat expansions such as fragile X, deep intronic or regulatory variants, structural variants, or low-level mosaicism. I would not reassure the family that there is no genetic cause; I would explain what the test excluded and keep the door open for sequencing. [1] [3]
Branch C — Escalating to sequencing
Examiner: What is your next test, and what yield do you quote? [2]
Strong answer: I escalate to whole-exome or whole-genome sequencing, ideally as a trio — the child and both parents — which resolves de novo status and inheritance and lifts the yield. I quote a diagnostic yield of roughly thirty to forty percent for trio exome or genome sequencing after a normal microarray, supported by the 2021 ACMG guideline and the 2019 meta-analytic consensus. Before testing I consent the family on the variant of uncertain significance and the secondary-findings opt-out. [2] [3]
Branch D — Interpreting the result
Examiner: The exome returns a variant of uncertain significance. How do you handle it? [6]
Strong answer: I interpret every variant against the clinical phenotype, because a variant that does not match the picture should not be over-called. The variant of uncertain significance is classified by the ACMG/AMP five-tier framework — pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, benign — and only pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants are diagnostic. I arrange segregation testing of the parents to see whether the variant is de novo or inherited, which may move the classification, and I do not build a management plan on a variant of uncertain significance that does not fit the phenotype. [6]
Branch E — The critically ill infant
Examiner: Now picture a critically ill neonate in intensive care with a suspected monogenic disorder. How does your approach change? [7]
Strong answer: In the critically ill infant the tier collapses. The test of choice is rapid whole-genome sequencing, which can return a diagnosis within days — the timeframe in which a diagnosis can change acute management. The NSIGHT1 randomised trial showed that rapid whole-genome sequencing increases the proportion of infants receiving an etiologic diagnosis within a clinically useful timeframe, and the Farnaes cohort showed decreased morbidity and cost. A diagnosis may escalate a specific therapy, withdraw futile treatment, or redirect to palliative care. I refer through the local rapid-genomics pathway and consent the family that a rapid result may change the goals of care. [7] [8]
Closing marks map
- The resolution ladder, with the resolution and blind spot of each platform. [1]
- A normal microarray does not exclude a single-gene disorder, a repeat expansion or an imprinting defect. [1] [3]
- Escalation to trio exome or genome with the yield and the consent covering the variant of uncertain significance and secondary findings. [2] [10]
- Rapid whole-genome sequencing as the first test for the critically ill infant, with the NSIGHT1 evidence. [7] [8]
References
- [1]Miller DT, Adam MP, Aradhya S, Biesecker LG, Brothman AR, Carter NP Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. American Journal of Human Genetics, 2010.PMID 20466091
- [2]Manickam K, McClain MR, Demmer LA, Biswas S, Kearney HM, Malinowski J Exome and genome sequencing for pediatric patients with congenital anomalies or intellectual disability: an evidence-based clinical guideline of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine, 2021.PMID 34211152
- [3]Srivastava S, Love-Nichols JA, Dies KA, Ledbetter DH, Martin CL, Chung WK Meta-analysis and multidisciplinary consensus statement: exome sequencing is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. Genetics in Medicine, 2019.PMID 31182824
- [6]Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J 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. Genetics in Medicine, 2015.PMID 25741868
- [7]Petrikin JE, Cakici JA, Smith MJ, Kingsmore SF The NSIGHT1-randomized controlled trial: rapid whole-genome sequencing for accelerated etiologic diagnosis in critically ill infants. NPJ Genomic Medicine, 2018.PMID 29449963
- [8]Farnaes L, Hildreth A, Sweeney NM, Clark MM, Chowdhury S, Nahas S Rapid whole-genome sequencing decreases infant morbidity and cost of hospitalization. NPJ Genomic Medicine, 2018.PMID 29644095
- [10]Miller DT, Lee K, Chung WK, Gordon AS, Hagstrom SA, Klein TE ACMG SF v3.2 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genetics in Medicine, 2023.PMID 37347242