Considerations for reporting variants in novel candidate genes identified during clinical genomic testing

IF 6.6 1区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY Genetics in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1016/j.gim.2024.101199
{"title":"Considerations for reporting variants in novel candidate genes identified during clinical genomic testing","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.gim.2024.101199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Since the first novel gene discovery for a Mendelian condition was made via exome sequencing, the rapid increase in the number of genes known to underlie Mendelian conditions coupled with the adoption of exome (and more recently, genome) sequencing by diagnostic testing labs has changed the landscape of genomic testing for rare diseases. Specifically, many individuals suspected to have a Mendelian condition are now routinely offered clinical ES. This commonly results in a precise genetic diagnosis but frequently overlooks the identification of novel candidate genes. Such candidates are also less likely to be identified in the absence of large-scale gene discovery research programs. Accordingly, clinical laboratories have both the opportunity, and some might argue a responsibility, to contribute to novel gene discovery, which should, in turn, increase the diagnostic yield for many conditions. However, clinical diagnostic laboratories must necessarily balance priorities for throughput, turnaround time, cost efficiency, clinician preferences, and regulatory constraints and often do not have the infrastructure or resources to effectively participate in either clinical translational or basic genome science research efforts. For these and other reasons, many laboratories have historically refrained from broadly sharing potentially pathogenic variants in novel genes via networks such as Matchmaker Exchange, much less reporting such results to ordering providers. Efforts to report such results are further complicated by a lack of guidelines for clinical reporting and interpretation of variants in novel candidate genes. Nevertheless, there are myriad benefits for many stakeholders, including patients/families, clinicians, and researchers, if clinical laboratories systematically and routinely identify, share, and report novel candidate genes. To facilitate this change in practice, we developed criteria for triaging, sharing, and reporting novel candidate genes that are most likely to be promptly validated as underlying a Mendelian condition and translated to use in clinical settings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12717,"journal":{"name":"Genetics in Medicine","volume":"26 10","pages":"Article 101199"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1098360024001333","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the first novel gene discovery for a Mendelian condition was made via exome sequencing, the rapid increase in the number of genes known to underlie Mendelian conditions coupled with the adoption of exome (and more recently, genome) sequencing by diagnostic testing labs has changed the landscape of genomic testing for rare diseases. Specifically, many individuals suspected to have a Mendelian condition are now routinely offered clinical ES. This commonly results in a precise genetic diagnosis but frequently overlooks the identification of novel candidate genes. Such candidates are also less likely to be identified in the absence of large-scale gene discovery research programs. Accordingly, clinical laboratories have both the opportunity, and some might argue a responsibility, to contribute to novel gene discovery, which should, in turn, increase the diagnostic yield for many conditions. However, clinical diagnostic laboratories must necessarily balance priorities for throughput, turnaround time, cost efficiency, clinician preferences, and regulatory constraints and often do not have the infrastructure or resources to effectively participate in either clinical translational or basic genome science research efforts. For these and other reasons, many laboratories have historically refrained from broadly sharing potentially pathogenic variants in novel genes via networks such as Matchmaker Exchange, much less reporting such results to ordering providers. Efforts to report such results are further complicated by a lack of guidelines for clinical reporting and interpretation of variants in novel candidate genes. Nevertheless, there are myriad benefits for many stakeholders, including patients/families, clinicians, and researchers, if clinical laboratories systematically and routinely identify, share, and report novel candidate genes. To facilitate this change in practice, we developed criteria for triaging, sharing, and reporting novel candidate genes that are most likely to be promptly validated as underlying a Mendelian condition and translated to use in clinical settings.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
报告临床基因组检测中发现的新型候选基因变异的注意事项。
自从通过外显子组测序(ES)首次发现孟德尔病症的新基因以来,已知的孟德尔病症基因数量迅速增加,加上诊断检测实验室采用外显子组(以及最近的基因组)测序,改变了罕见病基因组检测的格局。具体来说,许多被怀疑患有孟德尔疾病的人现在都会定期接受临床 ES 检测。这通常会导致精确的基因诊断,但往往忽略了新型候选基因的鉴定。在缺乏大规模基因发现研究计划的情况下,这些候选基因也不太可能被发现。因此,临床实验室既有机会,也有责任为新基因的发现做出贡献,从而提高许多疾病的诊断率。然而,临床诊断实验室必须平衡吞吐量、周转时间、成本效益、临床医生的偏好和监管限制等优先事项,而且往往不具备有效参与临床转化或基础基因组科学研究工作的基础设施或资源。由于这些原因和其他原因,许多实验室历来不通过 Matchmaker Exchange 等网络广泛共享新基因中的潜在致病变异,更不用说向订购提供者报告此类结果了。由于缺乏临床报告和解读新型候选基因变异的指南,报告此类结果的工作变得更加复杂。尽管如此,如果临床实验室能系统地、常规地识别、共享和报告新型候选基因,那么对包括患者/家属、临床医生、研究人员在内的许多利益相关者来说,都将受益匪浅。为了促进实践中的这一变化,我们制定了分流、共享和报告新型候选基因的标准,这些基因最有可能被及时验证为孟德尔病症的基础基因并应用于临床。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Genetics in Medicine
Genetics in Medicine 医学-遗传学
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
6.80%
发文量
857
审稿时长
1.3 weeks
期刊介绍: Genetics in Medicine (GIM) is the official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. The journal''s mission is to enhance the knowledge, understanding, and practice of medical genetics and genomics through publications in clinical and laboratory genetics and genomics, including ethical, legal, and social issues as well as public health. GIM encourages research that combats racism, includes diverse populations and is written by authors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
The "Genetic Test Request": A genomic stewardship intervention for inpatient exome and genome orders at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Payer Perspectives on Genomic Testing in the United States: A systematic literature review. Offering complex genomic screening in acute pediatric settings: family decision-making and outcomes. Upregulation vs. loss of function of NTRK2 in 44 affected individuals leads to two distinct neurodevelopmental disorders. Correspondence on "Weighty matters: Considering the ethics of genetic risk scores for obesity" by C. Houtz.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1