Genomics of severe and treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder treated with deep brain stimulation: A preliminary investigation.

Individuals with severe and treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (trOCD) represent a small but severely disabled group of patients. Since trOCD cases eligible for deep brain stimulation (DBS) probably comprise the most severe end of the OCD spectrum, we hypothesize that they may be more likely to have a strong genetic contribution to their disorder. Therefore, while the worldwide population of DBS-treated cases may be small (~300), screening these individuals with modern genomic methods may accelerate gene discovery in OCD. As such, we have begun to collect DNA from trOCD cases who qualify for DBS, and here we report results from whole exome sequencing and microarray genotyping of our first five cases. All participants had previously received DBS in the bed nucleus of stria terminalis (BNST), with two patients responding to the surgery and one showing a partial response. Our analyses focused on gene-disruptive rare variants (GDRVs; rare, predicted-deleterious single-nucleotide variants or copy number variants overlapping protein-coding genes). Three of the five cases carried a GDRV, including a missense variant in the ion transporter domain of KCNB1, a deletion at 15q11.2, and a duplication at 15q26.1. The KCNB1 variant (hg19 chr20-47991077-C-T, NM_004975.3:c.1020G>A, p.Met340Ile) causes substitution of methionine for isoleucine in the trans-membrane region of neuronal potassium voltage-gated ion channel KV2.1. This KCNB1 substitution (Met340Ile) is located in a highly constrained region of the protein where other rare missense variants have previously been associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. The patient carrying the Met340Ile variant responded to DBS, which suggests that genetic factors could potentially be predictors of treatment response in DBS for OCD. In sum, we have established a protocol for recruiting and genomically characterizing trOCD cases. Preliminary results suggest that this will be an informative strategy for finding risk genes in OCD.

Specifications of the ACMG/AMP Variant Classification Guidelines for Germline DICER1 Variant Curation.

Germline pathogenic variants in DICER1 predispose individuals to develop a variety of benign and malignant tumors. Accurate variant curation and classification is essential for reliable diagnosis of DICER1-related tumor predisposition and identification of individuals who may benefit from surveillance. Since 2015, most labs have followed the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) sequence variant classification guidelines for DICER1 germline variant curation. However, these general guidelines lack gene-specific nuances and leave room for subjectivity. Consequently, a group of DICER1 experts joined ClinGen to form the DICER1 and miRNA-Processing Genes Variant Curation Expert Panel (VCEP), to create DICER1- specific ACMG/AMP guidelines for germline variant curation. The VCEP followed the FDA-approved ClinGen protocol for adapting and piloting these guidelines. A diverse set of 40 DICER1 variants were selected for piloting, including 14 known Pathogenic/Likely Pathogenic (P/LP) variants, 12 known Benign/Likely Benign (B/LB) variants, and 14 variants classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS) or with conflicting interpretations in ClinVar. Clinically meaningful classifications (i.e., P, LP, LB, or B) were achieved for 82.5% (33/40) of the pilot variants, with 100% concordance among the known P/LP and known B/LB variants. Half of the VUS or conflicting variants were resolved with four variants classified as LB and three as LP. These results demonstrate that the DICER1-specific guidelines for germline variant curation effectively classify known pathogenic and benign variants while reducing the frequency of uncertain classifications. Individuals and labs curating DICER1 variants should consider adopting this classification framework to encourage consistency and improve objectivity.

Genomic Sequencing for Newborn Screening: Results of the NC NEXUS Project.

Newborn screening (NBS) was established as a public health program in the 1960s and is crucial for facilitating detection of certain medical conditions in which early intervention can prevent serious, life-threatening health problems. Genomic sequencing can potentially expand the screening for rare hereditary disorders, but many questions surround its possible use for this purpose. We examined the use of exome sequencing (ES) for NBS in the North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening (NC NEXUS) project, comparing the yield from ES used in a screening versus a diagnostic context. We enrolled healthy newborns and children with metabolic diseases or hearing loss (106 participants total). ES confirmed the participant's underlying diagnosis in 15 out of 17 (88%) children with metabolic disorders and in 5 out of 28 (∼18%) children with hearing loss. We discovered actionable findings in four participants that would not have been detected by standard NBS. A subset of parents was eligible to receive additional information for their child about childhood-onset conditions with low or no clinical actionability, clinically actionable adult-onset conditions, and carrier status for autosomal-recessive conditions. We found pathogenic variants associated with hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer in two children, a likely pathogenic variant in the gene associated with Lowe syndrome in one child, and an average of 1.8 reportable variants per child for carrier results. These results highlight the benefits and limitations of using genomic sequencing for NBS and the challenges of using such technology in future precision medicine approaches.

An Age-Based Framework for Evaluating Genome-Scale Sequencing Results in Newborn Screening.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of a standardized, age-based metric for scoring clinical actionability to evaluate conditions for inclusion in newborn screening and compare it with the results from other contemporary methods. STUDY DESIGN: The North Carolina Newborn Exome Sequencing for Universal Screening study developed an age-based, semiquantitative metric to assess the clinical actionability of gene-disease pairs and classify them with respect to age of onset or timing of interventions. This categorization was compared with the gold standard Recommended Uniform Screening Panel and other methods to evaluate gene-disease pairs for newborn genomic sequencing. RESULTS: We assessed 822 gene-disease pairs, enriched for pediatric onset of disease and suspected actionability. Of these, 466 were classified as having childhood onset and high actionability, analogous to conditions selected for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel core panel. Another 245 were classified as having childhood onset and low to no actionability, 25 were classified as having adult onset and high actionability, 19 were classified as having adult onset and low to no actionability, and 67 were excluded due to controversial evidence and/or prenatal onset. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes a novel method to facilitate decisions about the potential use of genomic sequencing for newborn screening. These categories may assist parents and physicians in making informed decisions about the disclosure of results from voluntary genomic sequencing in children.

Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Genes.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for families with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) provides a significant opportunity to improve care. Recent trends to increase gene panel sizes often mean variants in genes with questionable association are reported to patients. Classification of HCM genes and variants is critical, as misclassification can lead to genetic misdiagnosis. We show the validity of previously reported HCM genes using an established method for evaluating gene-disease associations. METHODS: A systematic approach was used to assess the validity of reported gene-disease associations, including associations with isolated HCM and syndromes including left ventricular hypertrophy. Genes were categorized as having definitive, strong, moderate, limited, or no evidence of disease causation. We also reviewed current variant classifications for HCM in ClinVar, a publicly available variant resource. RESULTS: Fifty-seven genes were selected for curation based on their frequent inclusion in HCM testing and prior association reports. Of 33 HCM genes, only 8 (24%) were categorized as definitive ( MYBPC3, MYH7, TNNT2, TNNI3, TPM1, ACTC1, MYL2, and MYL3); 3 had moderate evidence ( CSRP3, TNNC1, and JPH2; 33%); and 22 (66%) had limited (n=16) or no evidence (n=6). There were 12 of 24 syndromic genes definitively associated with isolated left ventricular hypertrophy. Of 4191 HCM variants in ClinVar, 31% were in genes with limited or no evidence of disease association. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of genes previously reported as causative of HCM and commonly included in diagnostic tests have limited or no evidence of disease association. Systematically curated HCM genes are essential to guide appropriate reporting of variants and ensure the best possible outcomes for HCM families.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Several genes on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility test panels have not been systematically examined for strength of association with disease. We employed the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) clinical validity framework to assess the strength of evidence between selected genes and breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Thirty-one genes offered on cancer panel testing were selected for evaluation. The strength of gene-disease relationship was systematically evaluated and a clinical validity classification of either Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Refuted, Disputed, or No Reported Evidence was assigned. RESULTS: Definitive clinical validity classifications were made for 10/31 and 10/32 gene-disease pairs for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Two genes had a Moderate classification whereas, 6/31 and 6/32 genes had Limited classifications for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Contradictory evidence resulted in Disputed or Refuted assertions for 9/31 genes for breast and 4/32 genes for ovarian cancer. No Reported Evidence of disease association was asserted for 5/31 genes for breast and 11/32 for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of gene-disease association using the ClinGen clinical validity framework revealed a wide range of classifications. This information should aid laboratories in tailoring appropriate gene panels and assist health-care providers in interpreting results from panel testing.