Prism Adaptation Study.

S. Archer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-6420(98)96047-X

1998-06-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources

Marina T. DiStefano,Scott Goehringer,Lawrence Babb,Fowzan S. Alkuraya,Joanna Amberger,Mutaz Amin,Christina Austin-Tse,Marie Balzotti,Jonathan S. Berg,Ewan Birney,Carol Bocchini,Elspeth A. Bruford,Alison J. Coffey,Heather Collins,Fiona Cunningham,Louise C. Daugherty,Yaron Einhorn,Helen V. Firth,David R. Fitzpatrick,Rebecca E. Foulger,Jennifer Goldstein,Ada Hamosh,Matthew R. Hurles,Sarah E. Leigh,Ivone US. Leong,Sateesh Maddirevula,Christa L. Martin,Ellen M. McDonagh,Annie Olry,Arina Puzriakova,Kelly Radtke,Erin M. Ramos,Ana Rath,Erin Rooney Riggs,Angharad M. Roberts,Charlotte Rodwell,Catherine Snow,Zornitza Stark,Jackie Tahiliani,Susan Tweedie,James S. Ware,Phillip Weller,Eleanor Williams,Caroline F. Wright,T Michael. Yates,Heidi L. Rehm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.03.21268593

2022-01-03

Abstract:PURPOSE Several groups and resources provide information that pertains to the validity of gene-disease relationships used in genomic medicine and research; however, universal standards and terminologies to define the evidence base for the role of a gene in disease, and a single harmonized resource were lacking. To tackle this issue, the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) was formed. METHODS The GenCC drafted harmonized definitions for differing levels of gene-disease validity based on existing resources, and performed a modified Delphi survey with three rounds to narrow the list of terms. The GenCC also developed a unified database to display curated gene-disease validity assertions from its members. RESULTS Based on 241 survey responses from the genetics community, a consensus term set was chosen for grading gene-disease validity and database submissions. As of December 2021, the database contains 15,241 gene-disease assertions on 4,569 unique genes from 12 submitters. When comparing submissions to the database from distinct sources, conflicts in assertions of gene-disease validity ranged from 5.3% to 13.4%. CONCLUSION Terminology standardization, sharing of gene-disease validity classifications, and resolution of curation conflicts will facilitate collaborations across international curation efforts and in turn, improve consistency in genetic testing and variant interpretation.
[A consensus on the standardization of the next generation sequencing process for the diagnosis of genetic diseases (3) - Data analysis].

Jun Sun,Yi Huang,Xiaodong Wang,Wenfu Li,Dongyan An,Yong Gao,Hui Xiong,Zaiwei Zhou,Xiong Xu,Xuxu Deng,Xiaoqing Wang,Hui Huang,Zhiyu Peng,Wei Zhang,Shihui Yu,Liang Wang,Weihong Gu,Shangzhi Huang,Yiping Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1003-9406.2020.03.021

2020-01-01

Abstract:Bioinformatic analysis and variant classification are the key components of high-throughput sequencing-based genetic diagnostic approach. This consensus is part of the effort to develop a standardized process for next generation sequencing (NGS)-based test for germline mutations underlying Mendelian disorders in China. The flow-chart, common software, key parameters of bioinformatics pipeline for data processing, annotation, storage and variant classification are reviewed, which is aimed to help improving and maintaining a high-quality process and obtaining consistent outcomes for NGS-based molecular diagnosis.
Implementation of a dyadic nomenclature for monogenic diseases

Courtney Thaxton,Leslie G Biesecker,Marina DiStefano,Melissa Haendel,Ada Hamosh,Emma Owens,Sharon E Plon,Heidi L Rehm,Jonathan S Berg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.07.019

2024-09-05

Abstract:A core task when establishing the strength of evidence for a gene's role in a monogenic disorder is determining the appropriate disease entity to curate. Establishing this concept determines which evidence can be applied and quantified toward the final gene-disease validity, variant pathogenicity, or actionability classification. Genes with implications in more than one phenotype can necessitate a process of lumping and splitting, disease reorganization, and updates to disease nomenclature. Reappraisal of the names that are used as labels for disease entities is therefore a necessary and perpetual process. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), in collaboration with representatives from Monarch Disease Ontology (Mondo) and Online Inheritance in Man (OMIM), formed the Disease Naming Advisory Committee (DNAC) to develop guidance for groups faced with the need to establish the "curated disease entity" for gene-phenotype validity and variant pathogenicity and to update disease names for clinical use when necessary. The objective of this group was to harmonize guidance for disease naming across these nosologic entities and among ClinGen curation groups in collaboration with other disease-related professional groups. Here, we present the initial guidance developed by the DNAC with representative examples provided by the ClinGen expert panels and working groups that warranted nomenclature updates. We also discuss the broader implications of these efforts and their benefits for harmonization of gene-disease validity curation. Overall, this work sheds light on current inconsistencies and/or discrepancies and is designed to engage the broader community on how ClinGen defines monogenic disorders using a consistent approach for disease naming.
ClinGen Variant Curation Interface: a variant classification platform for the application of evidence criteria from ACMG/AMP guidelines

Christine G. Preston,Matt W. Wright,Rao Madhavrao,Steven M. Harrison,Jennifer L. Goldstein,Xi Luo,Hannah Wand,Bryan Wulf,Gloria Cheung,Mark E. Mandell,Howard Tong,Shaung Cheng,Michael A. Iacocca,Arturo Lopez Pineda,Alice B. Popejoy,Karen Dalton,Jimmy Zhen,Selina S. Dwight,Lawrence Babb,Marina DiStefano,Julianne M. O’Daniel,Kristy Lee,Erin R. Riggs,Diane B. Zastrow,Jessica L. Mester,Deborah I. Ritter,Ronak Y. Patel,Sai Lakshmi Subramanian,Aleksander Milosavljevic,Jonathan S. Berg,Heidi L. Rehm,Sharon E. Plon,J. Michael Cherry,Carlos D. Bustamante,Helio A. Costa,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-021-01004-8

IF: 15.266

2022-01-18

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Background Identification of clinically significant genetic alterations involved in human disease has been dramatically accelerated by developments in next-generation sequencing technologies. However, the infrastructure and accessible comprehensive curation tools necessary for analyzing an individual patient genome and interpreting genetic variants to inform healthcare management have been lacking. Results Here we present the ClinGen Variant Curation Interface (VCI), a global open-source variant classification platform for supporting the application of evidence criteria and classification of variants based on the ACMG/AMP variant classification guidelines. The VCI is among a suite of tools developed by the NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Consortium and supports an FDA-recognized human variant curation process. Essential to this is the ability to enable collaboration and peer review across ClinGen Expert Panels supporting users in comprehensively identifying, annotating, and sharing relevant evidence while making variant pathogenicity assertions. To facilitate evidence-based improvements in human variant classification, the VCI is publicly available to the genomics community. Navigation workflows support users providing guidance to comprehensively apply the ACMG/AMP evidence criteria and document provenance for asserting variant classifications. Conclusions The VCI offers a central platform for clinical variant classification that fills a gap in the learning healthcare system, facilitates widespread adoption of standards for clinical curation, and is available at https://curation.clinicalgenome.org

genetics & heredity
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

Sue Richards,Nazneen Aziz,Sherri Bale,David Bick,Soma Das,Julie Gastier-Foster,Wayne W. Grody,Madhuri Hegde,Elaine Lyon,Elaine Spector,Karl Voelkerding,Heidi L. Rehm

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30

IF: 8.864

2015-05-01

Genetics in Medicine

Abstract:Disclaimer: These ACMG Standards and Guidelines were developed primarily as an educational resource for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory services. Adherence to these standards and guidelines is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These Standards and Guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinical laboratory geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient’s record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with these Standards and Guidelines. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants.1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next-generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever-increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprising representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and the College of American Pathologists to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP, and College of American Pathologists stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories, including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes, and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology—“pathogenic,” “likely pathogenic,” “uncertain significance,” “likely benign,” and “benign”—to describe variants identified in genes that cause Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classifying variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g., population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–approved laboratory, with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or the equivalent.Genet Med17 5, 405–423.

genetics & heredity
Curating genomic disease-gene relationships with Gene2Phenotype (G2P)

T. Michael Yates,Morad Ansari,Louise Thompson,Sarah E. Hunt,Elena Cibrian Uhalte,Rachel J. Hobson,Joseph A. Marsh,Caroline F. Wright,Helen V. Firth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-024-01398-1

IF: 15.266

2024-11-08

Genome Medicine

Abstract:Genetically determined disorders are highly heterogenous in clinical presentation and underlying molecular mechanism. The evidence underpinning these conditions in the peer-reviewed literature requires robust critical evaluation for diagnostic use. Here, we present a structured curation process for Gene2Phenotype (G2P). This draws on multiple lines of clinical, bioinformatic and functional evidence. The process utilises and extends existing terminologies, allows for precise definition of the molecular basis of disease, and confidence levels to be attributed to a given gene-disease assertion. In-depth disease curation using this process will prove useful in applications including in diagnostics, research and development of targeted therapeutics. G2P: www.ebi.ac.uk/gene2phenotype.

genetics & heredity
Utilizing ClinGen gene‐disease validity and dosage sensitivity curations to inform variant classification

Courtney Thaxton,Molly E. Good,Marina T. DiStefano,Xi Luo,Erica F. Andersen,Erik Thorland,Jonathan Berg,Christa Lese Martin,Heidi L. Rehm,Erin R. Riggs,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.24291

2021-11-15

Human Mutation

Abstract:Understanding whether there is enough evidence to implicate a gene's role in a given disease, as well as the mechanisms by which variants in this gene might cause this disease, is essential to determine clinical relevance. The National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed evaluation frameworks to assess both the strength of evidence supporting a relationship between a gene and disease (gene-disease validity), and whether loss (haploinsufficiency) or gain (triplosensitivity) of individual genes or genomic regions is a mechanism for disease (dosage sensitivity). ClinGen actively applies these frameworks across multiple disease domains, and makes this information publicly available via its website (https://www.clinicalgenome.org/) for use in multiple applications, including clinical variant classification. Here, we describe how the results of these curation processes can be utilized to inform the appropriate application of pathogenicity criteria for both sequence and copy number variants, as well as to guide test development and inform genomic filtering pipelines.

genetics & heredity
Curating genomic disease-gene relationships with Gene2Phenotype

T Michael Yates,Morad Ansari,Louise Thompson,Sarah E Hunt,Elena Cibrian Uhalte,Rachel J Hobson,Joseph A Marsh,Caroline F Wright,Helen V Firth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.26.24303357

2024-02-28

Abstract:Genetically determined disorders are highly heterogenous in clinical presentation and underlying molecular mechanism. The evidence underpinning these conditions in the peer-reviewed literature is variable and requires robust critical evaluation for diagnostic use. Here, we present a structured curation process for the Gene2Phenotype (G2P) project. This draws on multiple lines of clinical, bioinformatic and functional evidence. The process utilises and extends existing terminologies, allows for precise definition of the molecular basis of disease, and confidence levels to be attributed to a given gene-disease assertion. In-depth disease curation using this process will prove useful in applications including in diagnostics, research and the development of targeted therapeutics.

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
Evaluating the clinical validity of gene-disease associations: an evidence-based framework developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

Natasha T. Strande,Erin Rooney Riggs,Adam H. Buchanan,Ozge Ceyhan-Birsoy,Marina DiStefano,Selina S. Dwight,Jenny Goldstein,Rajarshi Ghosh,Bryce A. Seifert,Tam P. Sneddon,Matt W. Wright,Laura V. Milko,J. Michael Cherry,Monica A. Giovanni,Michael F. Murray,Julianne M. O’Daniel,Erin M. Ramos,Avni B. Santani,Alan F. Scott,Sharon E. Plon,Heidi L. Rehm,Christa L. Martin,Jonathan S. Berg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/111039

2017-02-22

Abstract:Abstract With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship, and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semi-quantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship which correlates to a qualitative classification: “Definitive”, “Strong”, “Moderate”, “Limited”, “No Reported Evidence” or “Conflicting Evidence.” Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived using this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.
[A Consensus on the Standardization of the Next Generation Sequencing Process for the Diagnosis of Genetic Diseases (4) - Report Interpretation and Genetic Counseling].

Hui Huang,Yiping Shen,Weihong Gu,Yi Huang,Xiaodong Wang,Yong Gao,Hui Xiong,Zaiwei Zhou,Jing Wu,Duan Ma,Dongyan An,Wei Zhang,Qinmei Fu,Xi Xiong,Zhiyu Peng,Liang Wang,Shangzhi Huang,Ming Qi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1003-9406.2020.03.022

2020-01-01

Abstract:Clinical genetic testing results are compiled into a standardized report by genetic specialists and provided to clinicians and patients (Should the patient be intellectually disabled or under 18, the report will be provided to his/her parents or legal guardians). The content of genetic testing report should conform to relevant guidelines, industry standards and consensus. The decisions of clinicians will be made based on the report and clinical indications. Genetic counselors should provide post-test counseling to clinicians and patients or their authorized family members. A mechanism of follow-up visit after the genetic testing should be established with informed consent. Data should be shared by clinical institutions and genome sequencing institutions. As findings upon follow-up visit can help with further evaluation of the results, genome sequencing institutions should regularly re-analyze historical and follow-up data, and the updated results should be shared with clinical institutions. All activities involving reporting, genetic counselling, follow-up visiting, and re-analyzing should follow the relevant guidelines and regulations.
An International Effort Towards Developing Standards for Best Practices in Analysis, Interpretation and Reporting of Clinical Genome Sequencing Results in the CLARITY Challenge

Catherine A Brownstein,Alan H Beggs,Nils Homer,Barry Merriman,Timothy W Yu,Katherine C Flannery,Elizabeth T DeChene,Meghan C Towne,Sarah K Savage,Emily N Price,Ingrid A Holm,Lovelace J Luquette,Elaine Lyon,Joseph Majzoub,Peter Neupert,David McCallie Jr,Peter Szolovits,Huntington F Willard,Nancy J Mendelsohn,Renee Temme,Richard S Finkel,Sabrina W Yum,Livija Medne,Shamil R Sunyaev,Ivan Adzhubey,Christopher A Cassa,Paul IW de Bakker,Hatice Duzkale,Piotr Dworzyński,William Fairbrother,Laurent Francioli,Birgit H Funke,Monica A Giovanni,Robert E Handsaker,Kasper Lage,Matthew S Lebo,Monkol Lek,Ignaty Leshchiner,Daniel G MacArthur,Heather M McLaughlin,Michael F Murray,Tune H Pers,Paz P Polak,Soumya Raychaudhuri,Heidi L Rehm,Rachel Soemedi,Nathan O Stitziel,Sara Vestecka,Jochen Supper,Claudia Gugenmus,Bernward Klocke,Alexander Hahn,Max Schubach,Mortiz Menzel,Saskia Biskup,Peter Freisinger,Mario Deng,Martin Braun,Sven Perner,Richard JH Smith,Janeen L Andorf,Jian Huang,Kelli Ryckman,Val C Sheffield,Edwin M Stone,Thomas Bair,E Ann Black-Ziegelbein,Terry A Braun,Benjamin Darbro,Adam P DeLuca,Diana L Kolbe,Todd E Scheetz,Aiden E Shearer,Rama Sompallae,Kai Wang,Alexander G Bassuk,Erik Edens,Katherine Mathews,Steven A Moore,Oleg A Shchelochkov,Pamela Trapane,Aaron Bossler,Colleen A Campbell,Jonathan W Heusel,Anne Kwitek,Tara Maga,Karin Panzer,Thomas Wassink,Douglas Van Daele,Hela Azaiez,Kevin Booth,Nic Meyer,Michael M Segal,Marc S Williams,Gerard Tromp,Peter White,Donald Corsmeier,Sara Fitzgerald-Butt,Gail Herman,Devon Lamb-Thrush,Kim L McBride,David Newsom,Christopher R Pierson,Alexander T Rakowsky,Aleš Maver,Luca Lovrečić,Anja Palandačić,Borut Peterlin,Ali Torkamani,Anna Wedell,Mikael Huss,Andrey Alexeyenko,Jessica M Lindvall,Måns Magnusson,Daniel Nilsson,Henrik Stranneheim,Fulya Taylan,Christian Gilissen,Alexander Hoischen,Bregje van Bon,Helger Yntema,Marcel Nelen,Weidong Zhang,Jason Sager,Lu Zhang,Kathryn Blair,Deniz Kural,Michael Cariaso,Greg G Lennon,Asif Javed,Saloni Agrawal,Pauline C Ng,Komal S Sandhu,Shuba Krishna,Vamsi Veeramachaneni,Ofer Isakov,Eran Halperin,Eitan Friedman,Noam Shomron,Gustavo Glusman,Jared C Roach,Juan Caballero,Hannah C Cox,Denise Mauldin,Seth A Ament,Lee Rowen,Daniel R Richards,F Anthony San Lucas,Manuel L Gonzalez-Garay,C Thomas Caskey,Yu Bai,Ying Huang,Fang,Yan Zhang,Zhengyuan Wang,Jorge Barrera,Juan M Garcia-Lobo,Domingo González-Lamuño,Javier Llorca,Maria C Rodriguez,Ignacio Varela,Martin G Reese,Francisco M De La Vega,Edward Kiruluta,Michele Cargill,Reece K Hart,Jon M Sorenson,Gholson J Lyon,David A Stevenson,Bruce E Bray,Barry M Moore,Karen Eilbeck,Mark Yandell,Hongyu Zhao,Lin Hou,Xiaowei Chen,Xiting Yan,Mengjie Chen,Cong Li,Can Yang,Murat Gunel,Peining Li,Yong Kong,Austin C Alexander,Zayed I Albertyn,Kym M Boycott,Dennis E Bulman,Paul MK Gordon,A Micheil Innes,Bartha M Knoppers,Jacek Majewski,Christian R Marshall,Jillian S Parboosingh,Sarah L Sawyer,Mark E Samuels,Jeremy Schwartzentruber,Isaac S Kohane,David M Margulies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2014-15-3-r53

2014-01-01

Abstract:Background There is tremendous potential for genome sequencing to improve clinical diagnosis and care once it becomes routinely accessible, but this will require formalizing research methods into clinical best practices in the areas of sequence data generation, analysis, interpretation and reporting. The CLARITY Challenge was designed to spur convergence in methods for diagnosing genetic disease starting from clinical case history and genome sequencing data. DNA samples were obtained from three families with heritable genetic disorders and genomic sequence data were donated by sequencing platform vendors. The challenge was to analyze and interpret these data with the goals of identifying disease-causing variants and reporting the findings in a clinically useful format. Participating contestant groups were solicited broadly, and an independent panel of judges evaluated their performance. Results A total of 30 international groups were engaged. The entries reveal a general convergence of practices on most elements of the analysis and interpretation process. However, even given this commonality of approach, only two groups identified the consensus candidate variants in all disease cases, demonstrating a need for consistent fine-tuning of the generally accepted methods. There was greater diversity of the final clinical report content and in the patient consenting process, demonstrating that these areas require additional exploration and standardization. Conclusions The CLARITY Challenge provides a comprehensive assessment of current practices for using genome sequencing to diagnose and report genetic diseases. There is remarkable convergence in bioinformatic techniques, but medical interpretation and reporting are areas that require further development by many groups.
Capturing All Disease-Causing Mutations for Clinical and Research Use: Toward an Effortless System for the Human Variome Project

Richard G H Cotton,Aida I Al Aqeel,Fahd Al-Mulla,Paola Carrera,Mireille Claustres,Rosemary Ekong,Valentine J Hyland,Finlay A Macrae,Makia J Marafie,Mark H Paalman,George P Patrinos,Ming Qi,Rajkumar S Ramesar,Rodney J Scott,Rolf H Sijmons,María-Jesús Sobrido,Mauno Vihinen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/gim.0b013e3181c371c5

2009-01-01

Abstract:The collection of genetic variants that cause inherited disease (causative mutation) has occurred for decades albeit in an ad hoc way, for research and clinical purposes. More recently, the access to collections of mutations causing specific diseases has become essential for appropriate genetic health care. Because information has accumulated, it has become apparent that there are many gaps in our ability to correctly annotate all the changes that are being identified at ever increasing rates. The Human Variome Project (www.humanvariomeproject.org) was initiated to facilitate integrated and systematic collection and access to this data. This manuscript discusses how collection of such data may be facilitated through new software and strategies in the clinical genetics and diagnostic laboratory communities.
Application of a 5-Tiered Scheme for Standardized Classification of 2,360 Unique Mismatch Repair Gene Variants in the InSiGHT Locus-Specific Database.

Bryony A Thompson,Amanda B Spurdle,John-Paul Plazzer,Marc S Greenblatt,Kiwamu Akagi,Fahd Al-Mulla,Bharati Bapat,Inge Bernstein,Gabriel Capellá,Johan T den Dunnen,Desiree du Sart,Aurelie Fabre,Michael P Farrell,Susan M Farrington,Ian M Frayling,Thierry Frebourg,David E Goldgar,Christopher D Heinen,Elke Holinski-Feder,Maija Kohonen-Corish,Kristina Lagerstedt Robinson,Suet Yi Leung,Alexandra Martins,Pal Moller,Monika Morak,Minna Nystrom,Paivi Peltomaki,Marta Pineda,Ming Qi,Rajkumar Ramesar,Lene Juel Rasmussen,Brigitte Royer-Pokora,Rodney J Scott,Rolf Sijmons,Sean V Tavtigian,Carli M Tops,Thomas Weber,Juul Wijnen,Michael O Woods,Finlay Macrae,Maurizio Genuardi,Adela Castillejo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2854

IF: 30.8

2013-01-01

Nature Genetics

Abstract:The clinical classification of hereditary sequence variants identified in disease-related genes directly affects clinical management of patients and their relatives. The International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours (InSiGHT) undertook a collaborative effort to develop, test and apply a standardized classification scheme to constitutional variants in the Lynch syndrome-associated genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2. Unpublished data submission was encouraged to assist in variant classification and was recognized through microattribution. The scheme was refined by multidisciplinary expert committee review of the clinical and functional data available for variants, applied to 2,360 sequence alterations, and disseminated online. Assessment using validated criteria altered classifications for 66% of 12,006 database entries. Clinical recommendations based on transparent evaluation are now possible for 1,370 variants that were not obviously protein truncating from nomenclature. This large-scale endeavor will facilitate the consistent management of families suspected to have Lynch syndrome and demonstrates the value of multidisciplinary collaboration in the curation and classification of variants in public locus-specific databases.
Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel

Michael T. Parsons,Miguel de la Hoya,Marcy E. Richardson,Emma Tudini,Michael Anderson,Windy Berkofsky-Fessler,Sandrine M. Caputo,Raymond C. Chan,Melissa C. Cline,Bing-Jian Feng,Cristina Fortuno,Encarna Gomez-Garcia,Johanna Hadler,Susan Hiraki,Megan Holdren,Claude Houdayer,Kathleen Hruska,Paul James,Rachid Karam,Huei San Leong,Alexandra Martins,Arjen R. Mensenkamp,Alvaro N. Monteiro,Vaishnavi Nathan,Robert O’Connor,Inge Sokilde Pedersen,Tina Pesaran,Paolo Radice,Gunnar Schmidt,Melissa Southey,Sean Tavtigian,Bryony A. Thompson,Amanda E. Toland,Clare Turnbull,Maartje J. Vogel,Jamie Weyandt,George A.R. Wiggins,Lauren Zec,Fergus J. Couch,Logan C. Walker,Maaike P. G. Vreeswijk,David E. Goldgar,Amanda B. Spurdle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.01.22.24301588

2024-01-23

Abstract:The ENIGMA research consortium ( ) develops and applies methods to determine clinical significance of variants in Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer genes. An ENIGMA classification sub-group, originally formed in 2016 as a ClinGen external expert panel, evolved into a ClinGen internal Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP) to align with Federal Drug Administration recognized processes for ClinVar contributions. The VCEP reviewed American College of Medical Genetics/Association of Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) classification criteria for relevance to interpreting and variants. Statistical methods were used to calibrate evidence strength for different data types. Pilot specifications were tested on 40 variants, and documentation revised for clarity and ease-of-use. The original criterion descriptions for 13 evidence codes were considered non-applicable or overlapping with other criteria. Scenario of use was extended or re-purposed for eight codes. Extensive analysis and/or data review informed specification descriptions and weights for all codes. Specifications were applied to pilot variants with pre-existing ClinVar classification as follows: 13 Uncertain Significance or Conflicting, 14 Pathogenic and/or Likely Pathogenic, and 13 Benign and/or Likely Benign. Review resolved classification for 11/13 Uncertain Significance or Conflicting variants, and retained or improved confidence in classification for the remaining variants. Alignment of pre-existing ENIGMA research classification processes with ACMG/AMP classification guidelines highlighted several gaps in both the research processes and the baseline ACMG/AMP criteria. Calibration of evidence types was key to justify utility and strength of different evidence types for gene-specific application. The gene-specific criteria demonstrated value for improving ACMG/AMP-aligned classification of and variants.

Genetic and Genomic Medicine
Human Variome Project Country Nodes: Documenting Genetic Information Within a Country

George P. Patrinos,Timothy D. Smith,Heather Howard,Fand Al-Mulla,Lotfi Chouchane,Andreas Hadjisavvas,Sherifa A. Hamed,Xi-Tao Li,Makia Marafie,Rajkumar S. Ramesar,Feliciano J. Ramos,Thomy de Rave,Mona O. El-Ruby,Tilak Ram Shrestha,Maria-Jess Sobrido,Ghazi Tadmouri,Martina Witsch-Baumgartner,Bin Alwi Zilfali,Arleen D. Auerbach,Kevin Carpenter,Garry R. Cutting,Vu Chi Dung,Wayne Grody,Julia Hasler,Lynn Jorde,Jim Kaput,Milan Macek,Yoichi Matsubara,Carmancita Padilla,Helen Robinson,Augusto Rojas-Martinez,Graham R. Taylor,Mauno Vihinen,Tom Weber,John Burn,Ming Qi,Richard G. H. Cotton,David Rimoin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.22147

2012-01-01

Human Mutation

Abstract:The Human Variome Project (http://www.humanvariomeproject.org) is an international effort aiming to systematically collect and share information on all human genetic variation. The two main pillars of this effort are gene/disease-specific databases and a network of Human Variome Project Country Nodes. The latter are nationwide efforts to document the genomic variation reported within a specific population. The development and successful operation of the Human Variome Project Country Nodes are of utmost importance to the success of Human Variome Project's aims and goals because they not only allow the genetic burden of disease to be quantified in different countries, but also provide diagnosticians and researchers access to an up-to-date resource that will assist them in their daily clinical practice and biomedical research, respectively. Here, we report the discussions and recommendations that resulted from the inaugural meeting of the International Confederation of Countries Advisory Council, held on 12th December 2011, during the 2011 Human Variome Project Beijing Meeting. We discuss the steps necessary to maximize the impact of the Country Node effort for developing regional and country-specific clinical genetics resources and summarize a few well-coordinated genetic data collection initiatives that would serve as paradigms for similar projects. Hum Mutat 33:15131519, 2012. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists

Kym Boycott,Taila Hartley,Shelin Adam,Francois Bernier,Karen Chong,Bridget A Fernandez,Jan M Friedman,Michael T Geraghty,Stacey Hume,Bartha M Knoppers,Anne-Marie Laberge,Jacek Majewski,Roberto Mendoza-Londono,M Stephen Meyn,Jacques L Michaud,Tanya N Nelson,Julie Richer,Bekim Sadikovic,David L Skidmore,Tracy Stockley,Sherry Taylor,Clara van Karnebeek,Ma'n H Zawati,Julie Lauzon,Christine M Armour

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jmedgenet-2015-103144

2015-05-07

Journal of Medical Genetics

Abstract:PURPOSE AND SCOPE: The aim of this Position Statement is to provide recommendations for Canadian medical geneticists, clinical laboratory geneticists, genetic counsellors and other physicians regarding the use of genome-wide sequencing of germline DNA in the context of clinical genetic diagnosis. This statement has been developed to facilitate the clinical translation and development of best practices for clinical genome-wide sequencing for genetic diagnosis of monogenic diseases in Canada; it does not address the clinical application of this technology in other fields such as molecular investigation of cancer or for population screening of healthy individuals.METHODS OF STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT: Two multidisciplinary groups consisting of medical geneticists, clinical laboratory geneticists, genetic counsellors, ethicists, lawyers and genetic researchers were assembled to review existing literature and guidelines on genome-wide sequencing for clinical genetic diagnosis in the context of monogenic diseases, and to make recommendations relevant to the Canadian context. The statement was circulated for comment to the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) membership-at-large and, following incorporation of feedback, approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. The CCMG is a Canadian organisation responsible for certifying medical geneticists and clinical laboratory geneticists, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada.RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations include (1) clinical genome-wide sequencing is an appropriate approach in the diagnostic assessment of a patient for whom there is suspicion of a significant monogenic disease that is associated with a high degree of genetic heterogeneity, or where specific genetic tests have failed to provide a diagnosis; (2) until the benefits of reporting incidental findings are established, we do not endorse the intentional clinical analysis of disease-associated genes other than those linked to the primary indication; and (3) clinicians should provide genetic counselling and obtain informed consent prior to undertaking clinical genome-wide sequencing. Counselling should include discussion of the limitations of testing, likelihood and implications of diagnosis and incidental findings, and the potential need for further analysis to facilitate clinical interpretation, including studies performed in a research setting. These recommendations will be routinely re-evaluated as knowledge of diagnostic and clinical utility of clinical genome-wide sequencing improves. While the document was developed to direct practice in Canada, the applicability of the statement is broader and will be of interest to clinicians and health jurisdictions internationally.

genetics & heredity
Toward Automatic Variant Interpretation: Discordant Genetic Interpretation Across Variant Annotations for ClinVar Pathogenic Variants

Ann, Yu-An Chen,Tzu-Hang Yuan,Jia-Hsing Huang,Yu-Bin Wang,Tzu-Mao Hung,Chien-Yu Chen,Jacob Shujui Hsu,Pei-Lung Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.11.617756

2024-10-15

Abstract:Purpose: High-throughput sequencing has revolutionized genetic disorder diagnosis, but variant pathogenicity interpretation is still challenging. Even though the Human Genome Variation Society (HGVS) provides recommendations for variant nomenclature, discrepancies in annotation remain a significant hurdle. Methods: This study evaluated the annotation concordance between three tools-ANNOVAR, SnpEff, and Variant Effect Predictor (VEP)-using 164,549 two-star variants from ClinVar. The analysis used HGVS nomenclature string-match comparisons to assess annotation consistency from each tool, corresponding coding impacts, and associated ACMG criteria inferred from the annotations. Results: The analysis revealed variable concordance rates, with 58.52% agreement for HGVSc, 84.04% for HGVSp, and 85.58% for the coding impact. SnpEff showed the highest match for HGVSc (0.988), while VEP bettered for HGVSp (0.977). The substantial discrepancies were noted in the Loss-of-Function (LoF) category. Incorrect PVS1 interpretations affected the final pathogenicity and downgraded PLP variants (ANNOVAR 55.9%, SnpEff 66.5%, VEP 67.3%), risking false negatives of clinically relevant variants in reports. Conclusions: These findings highlight the critical challenges in accurately interpreting variant pathogenicity due to discrepancies in annotations. To enhance the reliability of genetic variant interpretation in clinical practice, standardizing transcript sets and systematically cross-validating results across multiple annotation tools is essential.

Genomics
Leveraging base-pair mammalian constraint to understand genetic variation and human disease

Patrick F. Sullivan,Jennifer R. S. Meadows,Steven Gazal,BaDoi N. Phan,Xue Li,Diane P. Genereux,Michael X. Dong,Matteo Bianchi,Gregory Andrews,Sharadha Sakthikumar,Jessika Nordin,Ananya Roy,Matthew J. Christmas,Voichita D. Marinescu,Chao Wang,Ola Wallerman,James Xue,Shuyang Yao,Quan Sun,Jin Szatkiewicz,Jia Wen,Laura M. Huckins,Alyssa Lawler,Kathleen C. Keough,Zhili Zheng,Jian Zeng,Naomi R. Wray,Yun Li,Jessica Johnson,Jiawen Chen,Benedict Paten,Steven K. Reilly,Graham M. Hughes,Zhiping Weng,Katherine S. Pollard,Andreas R. Pfenning,Karin Forsberg-Nilsson,Elinor K. Karlsson,Kerstin Lindblad-Toh,Gregory Andrews,Joel C. Armstrong,Matteo Bianchi,Bruce W. Birren,Kevin R. Bredemeyer,Ana M. Breit,Matthew J. Christmas,Hiram Clawson,Joana Damas,Federica Di Palma,Mark Diekhans,Michael X. Dong,Eduardo Eizirik,Kaili Fan,Cornelia Fanter,Nicole M. Foley,Karin Forsberg-Nilsson,Carlos J. Garcia,John Gatesy,Steven Gazal,Diane P. Genereux,Linda Goodman,Jenna Grimshaw,Michaela K. Halsey,Andrew J. Harris,Glenn Hickey,Michael Hiller,Allyson G. Hindle,Robert M. Hubley,Graham M. Hughes,Jeremy Johnson,David Juan,Irene M. Kaplow,Elinor K. Karlsson,Kathleen C. Keough,Bogdan Kirilenko,Klaus-Peter Koepfli,Jennifer M. Korstian,Amanda Kowalczyk,Sergey V. Kozyrev,Alyssa J. Lawler,Colleen Lawless,Thomas Lehmann,Danielle L. Levesque,Harris A. Lewin,Xue Li,Abigail Lind,Kerstin Lindblad-Toh,Ava Mackay-Smith,Voichita D. Marinescu,Tomas Marques-Bonet,Victor C. Mason,Jennifer R. S. Meadows,Wynn K. Meyer,Jill E. Moore,Lucas R. Moreira,Diana D. Moreno-Santillan,Kathleen M. Morrill,Gerard Muntané,William J. Murphy,Arcadi Navarro,Martin Nweeia,Sylvia Ortmann,Austin Osmanski,Benedict Paten,Nicole S. Paulat,Andreas R. Pfenning,BaDoi N. Phan,Katherine S. Pollard,Henry E. Pratt,David A. Ray,Steven K. Reilly,Jeb R. Rosen,Irina Ruf,Louise Ryan,Oliver A. Ryder,Pardis C. Sabeti,Daniel E. Schäffer,Aitor Serres,Beth Shapiro,Arian F. A. Smit,Mark Springer,Chaitanya Srinivasan,Cynthia Steiner,Jessica M. Storer,Kevin A. M. Sullivan,Patrick F. Sullivan,Elisabeth Sundström,Megan A. Supple,Ross Swofford,Joy-El Talbot,Emma Teeling,Jason Turner-Maier,Alejandro Valenzuela,Franziska Wagner,Ola Wallerman,Chao Wang,Juehan Wang,Zhiping Weng,Aryn P. Wilder,Morgan E. Wirthlin,James R. Xue,Xiaomeng Zhang,Zoonomia Consortium§

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn2937

IF: 56.9

2023-04-29

Science

Abstract:Thousands of genomic regions have been associated with heritable human diseases, but attempts to elucidate biological mechanisms are impeded by an inability to discern which genomic positions are functionally important. Evolutionary constraint is a powerful predictor of function, agnostic to cell type or disease mechanism. Single-base phyloP scores from 240 mammals identified 3.3% of the human genome as significantly constrained and likely functional. We compared phyloP scores to genome annotation, association studies, copy-number variation, clinical genetics findings, and cancer data. Constrained positions are enriched for variants that explain common disease heritability more than other functional annotations. Our results improve variant annotation but also highlight that the regulatory landscape of the human genome still needs to be further explored and linked to disease.

multidisciplinary sciences
Expert Curation of Somatic Variants in Hematological Malignancies By the Clingen Somatic Hematological Cancer Taskforce (ClinGen HCT)

Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna,Shruti Rao,Panieh Terraf,Gordana Raca,Jason Saliba,Arpad Danos,Coumarane Mani,Heather Williams,Nan Jiang,Kevin C Vavra,Liying Zhang,Zonggao Shi,Peng Li,Yuwen Li,Madhu Michael Ouseph,Ella R Thompson,Yiming Zhong,Nicole Hinceman,Rong He,Kilannin Krysiak,Alex Wagner,Matthew McCoy,Mariam T Matthew,Kristin Deeb,Fengli Zhang,Jie Liu,David S. Viswanatha,Piers Blombery,David Wu,Shashikant Kulkarni,Subha Madhavan,Xinjie Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-143028

IF: 20.3

2020-11-05

Blood

Abstract:Hematological malignancies comprise a genetically heterogeneous spectrum of diseases caused by abnormal proliferation or maturation of a variety of hematological cell lineages. Genomic abnormalities including chromosomal translocations, copy number variations and sequence level gene mutations underlie the pathogenesis of these disorders and frequently serve as important diagnostic, prognostic and/or therapeutic markers. However, the substantial discrepancy in interpretation and reporting of these genomic abnormalities among testing labs creates challenges for patient management. Therefore, standardizing the curation, clinical interpretation and reporting of somatic alterations within the context of their diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic significance in hematological cancers is critical. In January 2020, the ClinGen Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain working group formed the Hematological Cancer Taskforce (HCT) with a goal to undertake systematic curation and evidence-based clinical interpretation of genes/somatic variants associated with hematological malignancies. The HCT has recruited 32 multi-disciplinary experts including oncologists, molecular pathologists, clinical lab directors, genomic scientists and biocurators with expertise in hematological malignancies. In collaboration with the Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) (civicdb.org) knowledgebase, variants from peer-reviewed publications are curated with editor review for clinical utility as evidence items. Monthly discussions based on these evidence items lead to the creation of summary variant assertions using the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines (Li M, et al., Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 2017). The HCT is currently focused on expert curation and clinical interpretation of somatic variants in FLT3 (internal tandem duplication, tyrosine kinase domain and non tyrosine kinase domain variants) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Expert curation of gene fusions in Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-like ALL) in collaboration with the ClinGen somatic pediatric cancer taskforce is currently underway. To date, the HCT has curated 45 evidence items from clinical and pre-clinical studies on the aforementioned genes/variants. In addition, three AMP Tier I, level A variant assertions of FLT3-ITD, D835 and I836, which predict response to Gilteritinib, an FDA-approved drug for relapsed or refractory AML, have been curated. In the future, the HCT plans to extend its focus on curation of BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Based on the initial pilot curation phase, the HCT will develop gene-specific recommendations to standardize the reporting and interpretation of somatic variants to better assist clinical decisions and apply to become official ClinGen Somatic Expert Panels in each of these gene-disease domains. Disclosures Blombery: Novartis: Consultancy; Invivoscribe: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria.

hematology
Standards for the classification of pathogenicity of somatic variants in cancer (oncogenicity): Joint recommendations of Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), Cancer Genomics Consortium (CGC), and Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC)

Peter Horak,Malachi Griffith,Arpad M. Danos,Beth A. Pitel,Subha Madhavan,Xuelu Liu,Cynthia Chow,Heather Williams,Leigh Carmody,Lisa Barrow-Laing,Damian Rieke,Simon Kreutzfeldt,Albrecht Stenzinger,David Tamborero,Manuela Benary,Padma Sheila Rajagopal,Cristiane M. Ida,Harry Lesmana,Laveniya Satgunaseelan,Jason D. Merker,Michael Y. Tolstorukov,Paulo Vidal Campregher,Jeremy L. Warner,Shruti Rao,Maya Natesan,Haolin Shen,Jeffrey Venstrom,Somak Roy,Kayoko Tao,Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna,Xinjie Xu,Deborah I. Ritter,Kym Pagel,Kilannin Krysiak,Adrian Dubuc,Yassmine M. Akkari,Xuan Shirley Li,Jennifer Lee,Ian King,Gordana Raca,Alex H. Wagner,Marylin M. Li,Sharon E. Plon,Shashikant Kulkarni,Obi L. Griffith,Debyani Chakravarty,Dmitriy Sonkin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.01.001

IF: 8.864

2022-01-01

Genetics in Medicine

Abstract:PurposeSeveral professional societies have published guidelines for the clinical interpretation of somatic variants, which specifically address diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic implications. Although these guidelines for the clinical interpretation of variants include data types that may be used to determine the oncogenicity of a variant (eg, population frequency, functional, and in silico data or somatic frequency), they do not provide a direct, systematic, and comprehensive set of standards and rules to classify the oncogenicity of a somatic variant. This insufficient guidance leads to inconsistent classification of rare somatic variants in cancer, generates variability in their clinical interpretation, and, importantly, affects patient care. Therefore, it is essential to address this unmet need.MethodsClinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain Working Group and ClinGen Germline/Somatic Variant Subcommittee, the Cancer Genomics Consortium, and the Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium used a consensus approach to develop a standard operating procedure (SOP) for the classification of oncogenicity of somatic variants.ResultsThis comprehensive SOP has been developed to improve consistency in somatic variant classification and has been validated on 94 somatic variants in 10 common cancer-related genes.ConclusionThe comprehensive SOP is now available for classification of oncogenicity of somatic variants.

genetics & heredity

Prism Adaptation Study.

The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources

[A consensus on the standardization of the next generation sequencing process for the diagnosis of genetic diseases (3) - Data analysis].

Implementation of a dyadic nomenclature for monogenic diseases

ClinGen Variant Curation Interface: a variant classification platform for the application of evidence criteria from ACMG/AMP guidelines

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

Curating genomic disease-gene relationships with Gene2Phenotype (G2P)

Utilizing ClinGen gene‐disease validity and dosage sensitivity curations to inform variant classification

Curating genomic disease-gene relationships with Gene2Phenotype

Evaluating the clinical validity of gene-disease associations: an evidence-based framework developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

[A Consensus on the Standardization of the Next Generation Sequencing Process for the Diagnosis of Genetic Diseases (4) - Report Interpretation and Genetic Counseling].

An International Effort Towards Developing Standards for Best Practices in Analysis, Interpretation and Reporting of Clinical Genome Sequencing Results in the CLARITY Challenge

Capturing All Disease-Causing Mutations for Clinical and Research Use: Toward an Effortless System for the Human Variome Project

Application of a 5-Tiered Scheme for Standardized Classification of 2,360 Unique Mismatch Repair Gene Variants in the InSiGHT Locus-Specific Database.

Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel

Human Variome Project Country Nodes: Documenting Genetic Information Within a Country

The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada: Position Statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists

Toward Automatic Variant Interpretation: Discordant Genetic Interpretation Across Variant Annotations for ClinVar Pathogenic Variants

Leveraging base-pair mammalian constraint to understand genetic variation and human disease

Expert Curation of Somatic Variants in Hematological Malignancies By the Clingen Somatic Hematological Cancer Taskforce (ClinGen HCT)

Standards for the classification of pathogenicity of somatic variants in cancer (oncogenicity): Joint recommendations of Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), Cancer Genomics Consortium (CGC), and Variant Interpretation for Cancer Consortium (VICC)