A systematic assessment of the impact of rare canonical splice site variants on splicing using functional and in silico methods.

Canonical splice site variants (CSSVs) are often presumed to cause loss-of-function (LoF) and are assigned very strong evidence of pathogenicity (according to American College of Medical Genetics/Association for Molecular Pathology criterion PVS1). The exact nature and predictability of splicing effects of unselected rare CSSVs in blood-expressed genes are poorly understood. We identified 168 rare CSSVs in blood-expressed genes in 112 individuals using genome sequencing, and studied their impact on splicing using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). There was no evidence of a frameshift, nor of reduced expression consistent with nonsense-mediated decay, for 25.6% of CSSVs: 17.9% had wildtype splicing only and normal junction depths, 3.6% resulted in cryptic splice site usage and in-frame insertions or deletions, 3.6% resulted in full exon skipping (in frame), and 0.6% resulted in full intron inclusion (in frame). Blind to these RNA-seq data, we attempted to predict the precise impact of CSSVs by applying in silico tools and the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group 2018 guidelines for applying PVS1 criterion. The predicted impact on splicing using (1) SpliceAI, (2) MaxEntScan, and (3) AutoPVS1, an automatic classification tool for PVS1 interpretation of null variants that utilizes Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor and MaxEntScan, was concordant with RNA-seq analyses for 65%, 63%, and 61% of CSSVs, respectively. In summary, approximately one in four rare CSSVs did not show evidence for LoF based on analysis of RNA-seq data. Predictions from in silico methods were often discordant with findings from RNA-seq. More caution may be warranted in applying PVS1-level evidence to CSSVs in the absence of functional data.

Consensus reporting guidelines to address gaps in descriptions of ultra-rare genetic conditions.

Genome-wide sequencing and genetic matchmaker services are propelling a new era of genotype-driven ascertainment of novel genetic conditions. The degree to which reported phenotype data in discovery-focused studies address informational priorities for clinicians and families is unclear. We identified reports published from 2017 to 2021 in 10 genetics journals of novel Mendelian disorders. We adjudicated the quality and detail of the phenotype data via 46 questions pertaining to six priority domains: (I) Development, cognition, and mental health; (II) Feeding and growth; (III) Medication use and treatment history; (IV) Pain, sleep, and quality of life; (V) Adulthood; and (VI) Epilepsy. For a subset of articles, all subsequent published follow-up case descriptions were identified and assessed in a similar manner. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop consensus reporting guidelines, with input from content experts across four countries. In total, 200 of 3243 screened publications met inclusion criteria. Relevant phenotypic details across each of the 6 domains were rated superficial or deficient in >87% of papers. For example, less than 10% of publications provided details regarding neuropsychiatric diagnoses and "behavioural issues", or about the type/nature of feeding problems. Follow-up reports (n = 95) rarely contributed this additional phenotype data. In summary, phenotype information relevant to clinical management, genetic counselling, and the stated priorities of patients and families is lacking for many newly described genetic diseases. The PHELIX (PHEnotype LIsting fiX) reporting guideline checklists were developed to improve phenotype reporting in the genomic era.