Variant Classification for Pompe disease; ACMG/AMP specifications from the ClinGen Lysosomal Diseases Variant Curation Expert Panel.

Accurate determination of the clinical significance of genetic variants is critical to the integration of genomics in medicine. To facilitate this process, the NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has assembled Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs), groups of experts and biocurators which provide gene- and disease- specifications to the American College of Medical Genetics & Genomics and Association for Molecular Pathology's (ACMG/AMP) variation classification guidelines. With the goal of classifying the clinical significance of GAA variants in Pompe disease (Glycogen storage disease, type II), the ClinGen Lysosomal Diseases (LD) VCEP has specified the ACMG/AMP criteria for GAA. Variant classification can play an important role in confirming the diagnosis of Pompe disease as well as in the identification of carriers. Furthermore, since the inclusion of Pompe disease on the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) for newborns in the USA in 2015, the addition of molecular genetic testing has become an important component in the interpretation of newborn screening results, particularly for asymptomatic individuals. To date, the LD VCEP has submitted classifications and supporting data on 243 GAA variants to public databases, specifically ClinVar and the ClinGen Evidence Repository. Here, we describe the ACMG/AMP criteria specification process for GAA, an update of the GAA-specific variant classification guidelines, and comparison of the ClinGen LD VCEP's GAA variant classifications with variant classifications submitted to ClinVar. The LD VCEP has added to the publicly available knowledge on the pathogenicity of variants in GAA by increasing the number of expert-curated GAA variants present in ClinVar, and aids in resolving conflicting classifications and variants of uncertain clinical significance.

Variant Classification Concordance using the ACMG-AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines across Nine Genomic Implementation Research Studies.

Harmonization of variant pathogenicity classification across laboratories is important for advancing clinical genomics. The two CLIA-accredited Electronic Medical Record and Genomics Network sequencing centers and the six CLIA-accredited laboratories and one research laboratory performing genome or exome sequencing in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium collaborated to explore current sources of discordance in classification. Eight laboratories each submitted 20 classified variants in the ACMG secondary finding v.2.0 genes. After removing duplicates, each of the 158 variants was annotated and independently classified by two additional laboratories using the ACMG-AMP guidelines. Overall concordance across three laboratories was assessed and discordant variants were reviewed via teleconference and email. The submitted variant set included 28 P/LP variants, 96 VUS, and 34 LB/B variants, mostly in cancer (40%) and cardiac (27%) risk genes. Eighty-six (54%) variants reached complete five-category (i.e., P, LP, VUS, LB, B) concordance, and 17 (11%) had a discordance that could affect clinical recommendations (P/LP versus VUS/LB/B). 21% and 63% of variants submitted as P and LP, respectively, were discordant with VUS. Of the 54 originally discordant variants that underwent further review, 32 reached agreement, for a post-review concordance rate of 84% (118/140 variants). This project provides an updated estimate of variant concordance, identifies considerations for LP classified variants, and highlights ongoing sources of discordance. Continued and increased sharing of variant classifications and evidence across laboratories, and the ongoing work of ClinGen to provide general as well as gene- and disease-specific guidance, will lead to continued increases in concordance.

Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines for clinical sequence variant interpretation state that "well-established" functional studies can be used as evidence in variant classification. These guidelines articulated key attributes of functional data, including that assays should reflect the biological environment and be analytically sound; however, details of how to evaluate these attributes were left to expert judgment. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) designates Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) in specific disease areas to make gene-centric specifications to the ACMG/AMP guidelines, including more specific definitions of appropriate functional assays. We set out to evaluate the existing VCEP guidelines for functional assays. METHODS: We evaluated the functional criteria (PS3/BS3) of six VCEPs (CDH1, Hearing Loss, Inherited Cardiomyopathy-MYH7, PAH, PTEN, RASopathy). We then established criteria for evaluating functional studies based on disease mechanism, general class of assay, and the characteristics of specific assay instances described in the primary literature. Using these criteria, we extensively curated assay instances cited by each VCEP in their pilot variant classification to analyze VCEP recommendations and their use in the interpretation of functional studies. RESULTS: Unsurprisingly, our analysis highlighted the breadth of VCEP-approved assays, reflecting the diversity of disease mechanisms among VCEPs. We also noted substantial variability between VCEPs in the method used to select these assays and in the approach used to specify strength modifications, as well as differences in suggested validation parameters. Importantly, we observed discrepancies between the parameters VCEPs specified as required for approved assay instances and the fulfillment of these requirements in the individual assays cited in pilot variant interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of the intricacies of functional assays often requires expert-level knowledge of the gene and disease, and current VCEP recommendations for functional assay evidence are a useful tool to improve the accessibility of functional data by providing a starting point for curators to identify approved functional assays and key metrics. However, our analysis suggests that further guidance is needed to standardize this process and ensure consistency in the application of functional evidence.

Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria for different types of evidence. This includes the strong evidence codes PS3 and BS3 for "well-established" functional assays demonstrating a variant has abnormal or normal gene/protein function, respectively. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes are a contributor to variant interpretation discordance between laboratories. This recommendation seeks to provide a more structured approach to the assessment of functional assays for variant interpretation and guidance on the use of various levels of strength based on assay validation. METHODS: The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group used curated functional evidence from ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel-developed rule specifications and expert opinions to refine the PS3/BS3 criteria over multiple in-person and virtual meetings. We estimated the odds of pathogenicity for assays using various numbers of variant controls to determine the minimum controls required to reach moderate level evidence. Feedback from the ClinGen Steering Committee and outside experts were incorporated into the recommendations at multiple stages of development. RESULTS: The SVI Working Group developed recommendations for evaluators regarding the assessment of the clinical validity of functional data and a four-step provisional framework to determine the appropriate strength of evidence that can be applied in clinical variant interpretation. These steps are as follows: (1) define the disease mechanism, (2) evaluate the applicability of general classes of assays used in the field, (3) evaluate the validity of specific instances of assays, and (4) apply evidence to individual variant interpretation. We found that a minimum of 11 total pathogenic and benign variant controls are required to reach moderate-level evidence in the absence of rigorous statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations and approach to functional evidence evaluation described here should help clarify the clinical variant interpretation process for functional assays. Further, we hope that these recommendations will help develop productive partnerships with basic scientists who have developed functional assays that are useful for interrogating the function of a variety of genes.

Is It Time for Synthetic Biodiversity Conservation?

Evidence indicates that, despite some critical successes, current conservation approaches are not slowing the overall rate of biodiversity loss. The field of synthetic biology, which is capable of altering natural genomes with extremely precise editing, might offer the potential to resolve some intractable conservation problems (e.g., invasive species or pathogens). However, it is our opinion that there has been insufficient engagement by the conservation community with practitioners of synthetic biology. We contend that rapid, large-scale engagement of these two communities is urgently needed to avoid unintended and deleterious ecological consequences. To this point we describe case studies where synthetic biology is currently being applied to conservation, and we highlight the benefits to conservation biologists from engaging with this emerging technology.

Comparative genome analysis of ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa reveals genes within newly identified high variability regions associated with drug resistance development.

The alarming rise of ciprofloxacin-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa has been reported in several clinical studies. Though the mutation of resistance genes and their role in drug resistance has been researched, the process by which the bacterium acquires high-level resistance is still not well understood. How does the genomic evolution of P. aeruginosa affect resistance development? Could the exposure of antibiotics to the bacteria enrich genomic variants that lead to the development of resistance, and if so, how are these variants distributed through the genome? To answer these questions, we performed 454 pyrosequencing and a whole genome analysis both before and after exposure to ciprofloxacin. The comparative sequence data revealed 93 unique resistance strain variation sites, which included a mutation in the DNA gyrase subunit A gene. We generated variation-distribution maps comparing the wild and resistant types, and isolated 19 candidates from three discrete resistance-associated high variability regions that had available transposon mutants, to perform a ciprofloxacin exposure assay. Of these region candidates with transposon disruptions, 79% (15/19) showed a reduction in the ability to gain high-level resistance, suggesting that genes within these high variability regions might enrich for certain functions associated with resistance development.