Abstract
Global untargeted metabolomics (GUM) has entered clinical diagnostics for genetic disorders. We compared the clinical utility of GUM with traditional targeted metabolomics (TM) as a screening tool in patients with established genetic disorders and determined the scope of GUM as a discovery tool in patients with no diagnosis under investigation. We compared TM and GUM data in 226 patients. The first cohort (n = 87) included patients with confirmed inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) and genetic syndromes; the second cohort (n = 139) included patients without diagnosis who were undergoing evaluation for a genetic disorder. In patients with known disorders (n = 87), GUM performed with a sensitivity of 86% (95% CI: 78-91) compared with TM for the detection of 51 diagnostic metabolites. The diagnostic yield of GUM in patients under evaluation with no established diagnosis (n = 139) was 0.7%. GUM successfully detected the majority of diagnostic compounds associated with known IEMs. The diagnostic yield of both targeted and untargeted metabolomics studies is low when assessing patients with non-specific, neurological phenotypes. GUM shows promise as a validation tool for variants of unknown significance in candidate genes in patients with non-specific phenotypes.