Iterative re-analysis of NGS results is not well investigated for published research cohorts of rare diseases. We revisited a cohort of 152 consanguineous families with developmental disorders (NDD) reported five years ago. We re-evaluated all reported variants according to diagnostic classification guidelines or our candidate gene scoring system (AutoCaSc) and systematically scored the validity of gene-disease associations. Sequencing data was re-processed using an up-to-date pipeline for case-level re-analysis. In 30/152 (20%) families, we identified a clinically relevant change. Thirteen previously reported (likely) pathogenic variants were re-classified as VUS/benign. In three cases, the gene-disease association (TSEN15, NAPB, and FAR1) validity was judged as limited. We identified 12 new disease causing variants. Two previously reported variants were missed by our updated pipeline due to alignment or reference issues. Our results support the need to re-evaluate screening studies, not only the negative cases but including supposedly solved ones. This also applies in a diagnostic setting. We highlight that the complexity of computational re-analysis for old data should be weighed against the decreasing re-testing costs. Since extensive re-analysis per case is beyond the resources of most institutions, we recommend a screening procedure that would quickly identify the majority (83%) of new variants.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

B.P. is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through grant PO2366/2-1.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The ethical committee of the medical faculty of the Friedrich-Alexander-University-Erlangen-Nurnberg gave ethical approval for this work. The Ethic Committe of the University of Bonn gave ethical approval for this work.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

All data generated or analyzed can be found either at the publisher's website or has been uploaded to Zenodo (File S2, S3: DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6206868).

https://zenodo.org/record/7113408