实施单基因疾病的双基因命名法。

IF 8.1 1区 生物学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY American journal of human genetics Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.07.019
Courtney Thaxton, Leslie G Biesecker, Marina DiStefano, Melissa Haendel, Ada Hamosh, Emma Owens, Sharon E Plon, Heidi L Rehm, Jonathan S Berg
{"title":"实施单基因疾病的双基因命名法。","authors":"Courtney Thaxton, Leslie G Biesecker, Marina DiStefano, Melissa Haendel, Ada Hamosh, Emma Owens, Sharon E Plon, Heidi L Rehm, Jonathan S Berg","doi":"10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.07.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7659,"journal":{"name":"American journal of human genetics","volume":"111 9","pages":"1810-1818"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393707/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of a dyadic nomenclature for monogenic diseases.\",\"authors\":\"Courtney Thaxton, Leslie G Biesecker, Marina DiStefano, Melissa Haendel, Ada Hamosh, Emma Owens, Sharon E Plon, Heidi L Rehm, Jonathan S Berg\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.07.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of human genetics\",\"volume\":\"111 9\",\"pages\":\"1810-1818\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393707/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of human genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.07.019\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of human genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.07.019","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在确定一个基因在单基因疾病中作用的证据强度时,一项核心任务是确定合适的疾病实体。这一概念的确立决定了哪些证据可用于最终的基因-疾病有效性、变异致病性或可操作性分类,并对其进行量化。对不止一种表型有影响的基因可能需要进行组合和拆分、疾病重组以及疾病命名的更新。因此,对作为疾病实体标签的名称进行重新评估是一个必要且永恒的过程。临床基因组资源(ClinGen)与君主疾病本体论(Mondo)和人类在线遗传(OMIM)的代表合作,成立了疾病命名咨询委员会(DNAC),为需要建立基因表型有效性和变异致病性的 "策划疾病实体 "的团体制定指南,并在必要时更新临床使用的疾病名称。该小组的目标是与其他疾病相关专业小组合作,统一这些疾病实体和 ClinGen 策划小组之间的疾病命名指南。在此,我们将介绍 DNAC 制定的初步指南,以及 ClinGen 专家小组和工作组提供的需要更新术语的代表性示例。我们还讨论了这些工作的广泛意义及其对协调基因-疾病有效性的好处。总之,这项工作揭示了目前存在的不一致和/或差异,旨在让更多人了解 ClinGen 如何使用一致的疾病命名方法来定义单基因疾病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Implementation of a dyadic nomenclature for monogenic diseases.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.70
自引率
4.10%
发文量
185
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Human Genetics (AJHG) is a monthly journal published by Cell Press, chosen by The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) as its premier publication starting from January 2008. AJHG represents Cell Press's first society-owned journal, and both ASHG and Cell Press anticipate significant synergies between AJHG content and that of other Cell Press titles.
期刊最新文献
Demographic history and genetic variation of the Armenian population. Primary cartilage transcriptional signatures reflect cell-type-specific molecular pathways underpinning osteoarthritis. The PRIMED Consortium: Reducing disparities in polygenic risk assessment. The methylomic landscape of human articular cartilage development contains epigenetic signatures of osteoarthritis risk. Comparative analysis of predicted DNA secondary structures infers complex human centromere topology.
×
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