Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate®

Principles and clinical applications of next-generation DNA sequencing

Peter J Hulick, MD, MMSc, FACMG
Section Editor
Benjamin A Raby, MD, MPH
Deputy Editor
Jennifer S Tirnauer, MD


Technologies for sequencing DNA have improved dramatically, to the point that it has become practical to sequence an individual's entire genome. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a type of DNA sequencing technology that uses parallel sequencing of multiple small fragments of DNA to determine sequence. This "high-throughput" technology has allowed a dramatic increase in the speed (and a decrease in the cost) at which an individual's genome can be sequenced.

The ability to sequence an entire genome raises several challenging questions for the clinician, including the following:

When should NGS be considered clinically?

What is the best choice among several types of genetic testing available?

What is the clinical significance of findings from sequencing of an entire genome?


Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Jul 2017. | This topic last updated: Aug 09, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
  1. Rizzo JM, Buck MJ. Key principles and clinical applications of "next-generation" DNA sequencing. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2012; 5:887.
  2. Bennett ST, Barnes C, Cox A, et al. Toward the 1,000 dollars human genome. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6:373.
  3. Hong YC, Liu HM, Chen PS, et al. Hair follicle: a reliable source of recipient origin after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2007; 40:871.
  4. Thiede C, Prange-Krex G, Freiberg-Richter J, et al. Buccal swabs but not mouthwash samples can be used to obtain pretransplant DNA fingerprints from recipients of allogeneic bone marrow transplants. Bone Marrow Transplant 2000; 25:575.
  5. Rennert H, Leonard DG, Cushing M, et al. Avoiding pitfalls in bone marrow engraftment analysis: a case study highlighting the weakness of using buccal cells for determining a patient's constitutional genotype after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cytotherapy 2013; 15:391.
  6. Easton DF, Pharoah PD, Antoniou AC, et al. Gene-panel sequencing and the prediction of breast-cancer risk. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:2243.
  7. King MC, Levy-Lahad E, Lahad A. Population-based screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2: 2014 Lasker Award. JAMA 2014; 312:1091.
  8. Walsh T, Casadei S, Lee MK, et al. Mutations in 12 genes for inherited ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal carcinoma identified by massively parallel sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011; 108:18032.
  9. Selkirk CG, Vogel KJ, Newlin AC, et al. Cancer genetic testing panels for inherited cancer susceptibility: the clinical experience of a large adult genetics practice. Fam Cancer 2014; 13:527.
  10. Rehm HL, Bale SJ, Bayrak-Toydemir P, et al. ACMG clinical laboratory standards for next-generation sequencing. Genet Med 2013; 15:733.
  11. Strom SP, Lee H, Das K, et al. Assessing the necessity of confirmatory testing for exome-sequencing results in a clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory. Genet Med 2014; 16:510.
  12. Beck TF, Mullikin JC, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program, Biesecker LG. Systematic Evaluation of Sanger Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing Variants. Clin Chem 2016; 62:647.
  13. Taylor JC, Martin HC, Lise S, et al. Factors influencing success of clinical genome sequencing across a broad spectrum of disorders. Nat Genet 2015; 47:717.
  14. Bamshad MJ, Ng SB, Bigham AW, et al. Exome sequencing as a tool for Mendelian disease gene discovery. Nat Rev Genet 2011; 12:745.
  15. Lupski JR, Reid JG, Gonzaga-Jauregui C, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in a patient with Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1181.
  16. Ashley EA, Butte AJ, Wheeler MT, et al. Clinical assessment incorporating a personal genome. Lancet 2010; 375:1525.
  17. Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD, et al. ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:2235.
  18. Van Driest SL, Wells QS, Stallings S, et al. Association of Arrhythmia-Related Genetic Variants With Phenotypes Documented in Electronic Medical Records. JAMA 2016; 315:47.
  19. Amendola LM, Jarvik GP, Leo MC, et al. Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 2016; 98:1067.
  20. Biesecker LG, Green RC. Diagnostic clinical genome and exome sequencing. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2418.
  21. Lee H, Deignan JL, Dorrani N, et al. Clinical exome sequencing for genetic identification of rare Mendelian disorders. JAMA 2014; 312:1880.
  22. Wright CF, Fitzgerald TW, Jones WD, et al. Genetic diagnosis of developmental disorders in the DDD study: a scalable analysis of genome-wide research data. Lancet 2015; 385:1305.
  23. Yang Y, Muzny DM, Reid JG, et al. Clinical whole-exome sequencing for the diagnosis of mendelian disorders. N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1502.
  24. Yang Y, Muzny DM, Xia F, et al. Molecular findings among patients referred for clinical whole-exome sequencing. JAMA 2014; 312:1870.
  25. Gilissen C, Hehir-Kwa JY, Thung DT, et al. Genome sequencing identifies major causes of severe intellectual disability. Nature 2014; 511:344.
  26. Tarailo-Graovac M, Shyr C, Ross CJ, et al. Exome Sequencing and the Management of Neurometabolic Disorders. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:2246.
  27. Kuehn BM. NIH's Undiagnosed Diseases Program expands: 6 new sites offer potential answers to more patients. JAMA 2014; 312:587.
  28. Lazaridis KN, Schahl KA, Cousin MA, et al. Outcome of Whole Exome Sequencing for Diagnostic Odyssey Cases of an Individualized Medicine Clinic: The Mayo Clinic Experience. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91:297.
  29. Sintchenko V, Holmes EC. The role of pathogen genomics in assessing disease transmission. BMJ 2015; 350:h1314.
  30. Wilson MR, Naccache SN, Samayoa E, et al. Actionable diagnosis of neuroleptospirosis by next-generation sequencing. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2408.
  31. Kalia SS, Adelman K, Bale SJ, et al. Recommendations for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing, 2016 update (ACMG SF v2.0): a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Genet Med 2017; 19:249.
  32. Vassy JL, Christensen KD, Schonman EF, et al. The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Primary Care and Outcomes of Healthy Adult Patients: A Pilot Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med 2017.
  33. Long EF, Ganz PA. Cost-effectiveness of Universal BRCA1/2 Screening: Evidence-Based Decision Making. JAMA Oncol 2015; 1:1217.
  34. Waddell N, Pajic M, Patch AM, et al. Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature 2015; 518:495.
  35. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. No. 12-398. 569 U.S ___ (2013). Text available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf