A framework for automated gene selection in genomic applications.

PURPOSE: An efficient framework to identify disease-associated genes is needed to evaluate genomic data for both individuals with an unknown disease etiology and those undergoing genomic screening. Here, we propose a framework for gene selection used in genomic analyses, including applications limited to genes with strong or established evidence levels and applications including genes with less or emerging evidence of disease association. METHODS: We extracted genes with evidence for gene-disease association from the Human Gene Mutation Database, OMIM, and ClinVar to build a comprehensive gene list of 6,145 genes. Next, we applied stringent filters in conjunction with computationally curated evidence (DisGeNET) to create a restrictive list limited to 3,929 genes with stronger disease associations. RESULTS: When compared to manual gene curation efforts, including the Clinical Genome Resource, genes with strong or definitive disease associations are included in both gene lists at high percentages, while genes with limited evidence are largely removed. We further confirmed the utility of this approach in identifying pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants in 45 genomes. CONCLUSION: Our approach efficiently creates highly sensitive gene lists for genomic applications, while remaining dynamic and updatable, enabling time savings in genomic applications.

A systematic approach to assessing the clinical significance of genetic variants.

Molecular genetic testing informs diagnosis, prognosis, and risk assessment for patients and their family members. Recent advances in low-cost, high-throughput DNA sequencing and computing technologies have enabled the rapid expansion of genetic test content, resulting in dramatically increased numbers of DNA variants identified per test. To address this challenge, our laboratory has developed a systematic approach to thorough and efficient assessments of variants for pathogenicity determination. We first search for existing data in publications and databases including internal, collaborative and public resources. We then perform full evidence-based assessments through statistical analyses of observations in the general population and disease cohorts, evaluation of experimental data from in vivo or in vitro studies, and computational predictions of potential impacts of each variant. Finally, we weigh all evidence to reach an overall conclusion on the potential for each variant to be disease causing. In this report, we highlight the principles of variant assessment, address the caveats and pitfalls, and provide examples to illustrate the process. By sharing our experience and providing a framework for variant assessment, including access to a freely available customizable tool, we hope to help move towards standardized and consistent approaches to variant assessment.