Genetics in Medicine最新文献

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.

Purpose

Germline testing in pediatric cancer presents opportunities and challenges. Understanding family perspectives, experiences, and preferences will optimize integration into routine care.

Methods

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched 4 databases for studies exploring perspectives, experiences, and preferences of parents/caregivers and/or patients regarding germline testing of children with cancer. Qualitative and quantitative data were extracted, organized, and summarized by research question and themes.

Results

We identified 2286 unique articles, of which 24 were included. Interest in and uptake of testing was high. Families were motivated by altruism and a desire for inheritance/causation information. Testing barriers included psychological concerns, timing of the testing approach if offered at diagnosis or in a high-risk cancer setting and privacy/discrimination. Testing experiences highlighted challenges yet also positive impacts, with results providing psychological relief and informing proactive decision making. Timing preferences varied; however, allowing time to adjust to a new diagnosis was a common theme. Most wanted to receive as many germline sequencing-related results as possible.

Conclusion

Findings underscore the importance of integrating germline analyses into pediatric cancer care with flexibility and support for families facing challenges. Where possible, consent should be provided at a time that suits each family’s situation with access to information aligning with their needs and preferences. PROSPERO:CRD42023444890.

Purpose

We compared the rate of errors in genome sequencing (GS) result disclosures by genetic counselors (GC) and trained non-genetics healthcare professionals (NGHPs) in SouthSeq, a randomized trial utilizing GS in critically ill infants.

Methods

Over 400 recorded GS result disclosures were analyzed for major and minor errors. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare error rates between GCs and NGHPs and performed a qualitative content analysis to characterize error themes.

Results

Major errors were identified in 7.5% of disclosures by NGHPs and in no disclosures by GCs. Minor errors were identified in 32.1% of disclosures by NGHPs and in 11.4% of disclosures by GCs. Although most disclosures lacked errors, NGHPs were significantly more likely to make any error than GCs for all result types (positive, negative, or uncertain). Common major error themes include omission of critical information, overstating a negative result, and overinterpreting an uncertain result. The most common minor error was failing to disclose negative secondary findings.

Conclusion

Trained NGHPs made clinically significant errors in GS result disclosures. Characterizing common errors in result disclosure can illuminate gaps in education to inform the development of future genomics training and alternative service delivery models.

Purpose

Critically ill infants from marginalized populations disproportionately receive care in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) that lack access to state-of-the-art genomic care, leading to inequitable outcomes. We sought provider perspectives to inform our implementation study (VIGOR) providing rapid genomic sequencing within these settings.

Methods

We conducted semistructured focus groups with neonatal and genetics providers at 6 NICUs at safety-net hospitals, informed by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, which incorporates evidence, context, and facilitation domains. We iteratively developed codes and themes until thematic saturation was reached.

Results

Regarding evidence, providers felt that genetic testing benefits infants and families. Regarding context, the major barriers identified to genomic care were genetic testing cost, lack of genetics expertise for disclosure and follow-up, and navigating the complexity of selecting and ordering genetic tests. Providers had negative feelings about the current status quo and inequity in genomic care across NICUs. Regarding facilitation, providers felt that a virtual support model such as VIGOR would address major barriers and foster family-centered care and collaboration.

Conclusion

NICU providers at safety-net hospitals believe that access to state-of-the-art genomic care is critical for optimizing infant outcomes; yet, substantial barriers exist that the VIGOR study may address.

Purpose

High costs of applying to genetic counseling graduate programs (GCGPs) are likely a barrier to workforce diversification. We sought to determine application costs and assess differences between individuals of historically underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds in medicine (hURM) and non-hURM applicants.

Methods

Applicants to GCGPs between 2005 to 2020 were surveyed about application history, related expenses, volunteer hours, and financial resources; 383 responses were analyzed.

Results

Median total application costs (MTAC) were $2634, $4762, and $5607 (1, 2, and 3 or more application cycles, respectively). Interview-related items (which includes travel) had the highest median cost (1 application cycle: $879). Among those who applied to multiple cycles, hURM respondents had higher MTAC than those of non-hURM ($6713 versus $4762, P = .03) and lower median total volunteer hours (246 versus 381, P = .03). Parental education level differed by hURM status (P = .04). Median financial contribution from parents with and without advanced degrees varied significantly (60% versus 2%, P = .0009).

Conclusion

Significant costs are incurred during the GCGP application process, but notable differences in costs and resources were observed between hURM and non-hURM applicants. Stakeholders within the profession should implement strategies to reduce financial barriers and the resulting inequities in the application process.

Purpose

The identification of germline BRCA1/BRCA2 pathogenic variants (PV) infer high remaining lifetime breast/ovarian cancer risks, but there is paucity of studies assessing breast cancer risk after ovarian cancer diagnosis.

Methods

We reviewed the history of breast cancer in 895 PV heterozygotes (BRCA1 = 541). Cumulative annual breast cancer incidence was assessed at 2, 5, 10, and >10 years after ovarian cancer diagnosis date.

Results

Breast cancer annual rates were evaluated in 701 assessable women with no breast cancer at ovarian diagnosis (BRCA1 = 425). Incidence was lower at 2 years (1.18%) and 2 to 5 years (1.13%) but rose thereafter for BRCA1 with incidence post 10 years in excess of 4% annually. Breast cancer pathology in BRCA1 PV heterozygotes showed less high-grade triple-negative breast cancer and more lower-grade hormone-receptor-positive cancer than women with no prior ovarian cancer. In the prospective cohort from ovarian cancer diagnosis, <4% of all deaths were caused by breast cancer, although 50% of deaths in women with breast cancer after ovarian cancer diagnosis were due to breast cancer.

Conclusion

Women can be reassured that incidence of breast cancer after ovarian cancer diagnosis is relatively low. It appears likely that this effect is due to platinum-based chemotherapy. Nonetheless women need to be aware that incidence increases thereafter, especially after 10 years.

Purpose

We identified 2 individuals with de novo variants in SREBF2 that disrupt a conserved site 1 protease (S1P) cleavage motif required for processing SREBP2 into its mature transcription factor. These individuals exhibit complex phenotypic manifestations that partially overlap with sterol regulatory element binding proteins (SREBP) pathway-related disease phenotypes, but SREBF2-related disease has not been previously reported. Thus, we set out to assess the effects of SREBF2 variants on SREBP pathway activation.

Methods

We undertook ultrastructure and gene expression analyses using fibroblasts from an affected individual and utilized a fly model of lipid droplet (LD) formation to investigate the consequences of SREBF2 variants on SREBP pathway function.

Results

We observed reduced LD formation, endoplasmic reticulum expansion, accumulation of aberrant lysosomes, and deficits in SREBP2 target gene expression in fibroblasts from an affected individual, indicating that the SREBF2 variant inhibits SREBP pathway activation. Using our fly model, we discovered that SREBF2 variants fail to induce LD production and act in a dominant-negative manner, which can be rescued by overexpression of S1P.

Conclusion

Taken together, these data reveal a mechanism by which SREBF2 pathogenic variants that disrupt the S1P cleavage motif cause disease via dominant-negative antagonism of S1P, limiting the cleavage of S1P targets, including SREBP1 and SREBP2.

Purpose

Progressive inherited retinal degenerations (IRDs) affecting rods and cones are clinically and genetically heterogeneous and can lead to blindness with limited therapeutic options. The major gene defects have been identified in subjects of European and Asian descent with only few reports of North African descent.

Methods

Genome, targeted next-generation, and Sanger sequencing was applied to cohort of ∼4000 IRDs cases. Expression analyses were performed including Chip-seq database analyses, on human-derived retinal organoids (ROs), retinal pigment epithelium cells, and zebrafish. Variants’ pathogenicity was accessed using 3D-modeling and/or ROs.

Results

Here, we identified a novel gene defect with three distinct pathogenic variants in UBAP1L in 4 independent autosomal recessive IRD cases from Tunisia. UBAP1L is expressed in the retinal pigment epithelium and retina, specifically in rods and cones, in line with the phenotype. It encodes Ubiquitin-associated protein 1-like, containing a solenoid of overlapping ubiquitin-associated domain, predicted to interact with ubiquitin. In silico and in vitro studies, including 3D-modeling and ROs revealed that the solenoid of overlapping ubiquitin-associated domain is truncated and thus ubiquitin binding most likely abolished secondary to all variants identified herein.

Conclusion

Biallelic UBAP1L variants are a novel cause of IRDs, most likely enriched in the North African population.