Isabel R. Betzler, Maja Hempel, Ulrike Mütze, Stefan Kölker, Eva Winkler, Nicola Dikow, Sven F. Garbade, Christian P. Schaaf, Heiko Brennenstuhl
{"title":"基因组新生儿筛查研究中基因和疾病选择的比较分析。","authors":"Isabel R. Betzler, Maja Hempel, Ulrike Mütze, Stefan Kölker, Eva Winkler, Nicola Dikow, Sven F. Garbade, Christian P. Schaaf, Heiko Brennenstuhl","doi":"10.1002/jimd.12750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) is on the horizon given the decreasing costs of sequencing and the advanced understanding of the impact of genetic variants on health and diseases. Key to ongoing gNBS pilot studies is the selection of target diseases and associated genes to be included. In this study, we present a comprehensive analysis of seven published gene–disease lists from gNBS studies, evaluating gene–disease count, composition, group proportions, and ClinGen curations of individual disorders. Despite shared selection criteria, we observe substantial variation in total gene count (median 480, range 237–889) and disease group composition. An intersection was identified for 53 genes, primarily inherited metabolic diseases (83%, 44/53). Each study investigated a subset of exclusive gene–disease pairs, and the total number of exclusive gene–disease pairs was positively correlated with the total number of genes included per study. While most pairs receive “Definitive” or “Strong” ClinGen classifications, some are labeled as “Refuted” (<i>n</i> = 5) or “Disputed” (<i>n</i> = 28), particularly in genetic cardiac diseases. Importantly, 17%–48% of genes lack ClinGen curation. This study underscores the current absence of consensus recommendations for selection criteria for target diseases for gNBS resulting in diversity in proposed gene–disease pairs, their coupling with gene variations and the use of ClinGen curation. Our findings provide crucial insights into the selection of target diseases and accompanying gene variations for future gNBS program, emphasizing the necessity for ongoing collaboration and discussion about criteria harmonization for panel selection to ensure the screening's objectivity, integrity, and broad acceptance.</p>","PeriodicalId":16281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease","volume":"47 5","pages":"945-970"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jimd.12750","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative analysis of gene and disease selection in genomic newborn screening studies\",\"authors\":\"Isabel R. Betzler, Maja Hempel, Ulrike Mütze, Stefan Kölker, Eva Winkler, Nicola Dikow, Sven F. Garbade, Christian P. Schaaf, Heiko Brennenstuhl\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jimd.12750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) is on the horizon given the decreasing costs of sequencing and the advanced understanding of the impact of genetic variants on health and diseases. Key to ongoing gNBS pilot studies is the selection of target diseases and associated genes to be included. In this study, we present a comprehensive analysis of seven published gene–disease lists from gNBS studies, evaluating gene–disease count, composition, group proportions, and ClinGen curations of individual disorders. Despite shared selection criteria, we observe substantial variation in total gene count (median 480, range 237–889) and disease group composition. An intersection was identified for 53 genes, primarily inherited metabolic diseases (83%, 44/53). Each study investigated a subset of exclusive gene–disease pairs, and the total number of exclusive gene–disease pairs was positively correlated with the total number of genes included per study. While most pairs receive “Definitive” or “Strong” ClinGen classifications, some are labeled as “Refuted” (<i>n</i> = 5) or “Disputed” (<i>n</i> = 28), particularly in genetic cardiac diseases. Importantly, 17%–48% of genes lack ClinGen curation. This study underscores the current absence of consensus recommendations for selection criteria for target diseases for gNBS resulting in diversity in proposed gene–disease pairs, their coupling with gene variations and the use of ClinGen curation. Our findings provide crucial insights into the selection of target diseases and accompanying gene variations for future gNBS program, emphasizing the necessity for ongoing collaboration and discussion about criteria harmonization for panel selection to ensure the screening's objectivity, integrity, and broad acceptance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease\",\"volume\":\"47 5\",\"pages\":\"945-970\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jimd.12750\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jimd.12750\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jimd.12750","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative analysis of gene and disease selection in genomic newborn screening studies
Genomic newborn screening (gNBS) is on the horizon given the decreasing costs of sequencing and the advanced understanding of the impact of genetic variants on health and diseases. Key to ongoing gNBS pilot studies is the selection of target diseases and associated genes to be included. In this study, we present a comprehensive analysis of seven published gene–disease lists from gNBS studies, evaluating gene–disease count, composition, group proportions, and ClinGen curations of individual disorders. Despite shared selection criteria, we observe substantial variation in total gene count (median 480, range 237–889) and disease group composition. An intersection was identified for 53 genes, primarily inherited metabolic diseases (83%, 44/53). Each study investigated a subset of exclusive gene–disease pairs, and the total number of exclusive gene–disease pairs was positively correlated with the total number of genes included per study. While most pairs receive “Definitive” or “Strong” ClinGen classifications, some are labeled as “Refuted” (n = 5) or “Disputed” (n = 28), particularly in genetic cardiac diseases. Importantly, 17%–48% of genes lack ClinGen curation. This study underscores the current absence of consensus recommendations for selection criteria for target diseases for gNBS resulting in diversity in proposed gene–disease pairs, their coupling with gene variations and the use of ClinGen curation. Our findings provide crucial insights into the selection of target diseases and accompanying gene variations for future gNBS program, emphasizing the necessity for ongoing collaboration and discussion about criteria harmonization for panel selection to ensure the screening's objectivity, integrity, and broad acceptance.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease (JIMD) is the official journal of the Society for the Study of Inborn Errors of Metabolism (SSIEM). By enhancing communication between workers in the field throughout the world, the JIMD aims to improve the management and understanding of inherited metabolic disorders. It publishes results of original research and new or important observations pertaining to any aspect of inherited metabolic disease in humans and higher animals. This includes clinical (medical, dental and veterinary), biochemical, genetic (including cytogenetic, molecular and population genetic), experimental (including cell biological), methodological, theoretical, epidemiological, ethical and counselling aspects. The JIMD also reviews important new developments or controversial issues relating to metabolic disorders and publishes reviews and short reports arising from the Society''s annual symposia. A distinction is made between peer-reviewed scientific material that is selected because of its significance for other professionals in the field and non-peer- reviewed material that aims to be important, controversial, interesting or entertaining (“Extras”).