A pangenome reference of 36 Chinese populations.

Human genomics is witnessing an ongoing paradigm shift from a single reference sequence to a pangenome form, but populations of Asian ancestry are underrepresented. Here we present data from the first phase of the Chinese Pangenome Consortium, including a collection of 116 high-quality and haplotype-phased de novo assemblies based on 58 core samples representing 36 minority Chinese ethnic groups. With an average 30.65× high-fidelity long-read sequence coverage, an average contiguity N50 of more than 35.63 megabases and an average total size of 3.01 gigabases, the CPC core assemblies add 189 million base pairs of euchromatic polymorphic sequences and 1,367 protein-coding gene duplications to GRCh38. We identified 15.9 million small variants and 78,072 structural variants, of which 5.9 million small variants and 34,223 structural variants were not reported in a recently released pangenome reference1. The Chinese Pangenome Consortium data demonstrate a remarkable increase in the discovery of novel and missing sequences when individuals are included from underrepresented minority ethnic groups. The missing reference sequences were enriched with archaic-derived alleles and genes that confer essential functions related to keratinization, response to ultraviolet radiation, DNA repair, immunological responses and lifespan, implying great potential for shedding new light on human evolution and recovering missing heritability in complex disease mapping.

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences.

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin molecular techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human research publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check their claimed status. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen >11,700 publications across five literature corpora, including all original publications in Gene from 2007 to 2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014 to 2018. After manually checking Seek & Blastn outputs for >3,400 human research articles, we identified 712 articles across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of >13,700 sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs. The 712 problematic articles have received >17,000 citations, including citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one-quarter of problematic articles may misinform the future development of human therapies, urgent measures are required to address unreliable gene research articles.

Return of individual research results from genomic research: A systematic review of stakeholder perspectives.

Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.

Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics.

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that 'actionable' genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings-so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing.

Genome-wide Association Studies in Ancestrally Diverse Populations: Opportunities, Methods, Pitfalls, and Recommendations.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have focused primarily on populations of European descent, but it is essential that diverse populations become better represented. Increasing diversity among study participants will advance our understanding of genetic architecture in all populations and ensure that genetic research is broadly applicable. To facilitate and promote research in multi-ancestry and admixed cohorts, we outline key methodological considerations and highlight opportunities, challenges, solutions, and areas in need of development. Despite the perception that analyzing genetic data from diverse populations is difficult, it is scientifically and ethically imperative, and there is an expanding analytical toolbox to do it well.

Regarding the rights and duties of Clinical Laboratory Geneticists in genetic healthcare systems; results of a survey in over 50 countries.

Specialists of human genetic diagnostics can be divided into four groups: Medical Geneticists (MDG), Genetic Nurses and/or Counsellors (GN/GC), Clinical Laboratory Geneticists (CLG) and Laboratory Genetics Technicians (LGT). While the first two groups are in direct patient contact, the work of the latter two, of equal importance for patient care, are often hidden as they work behind the scenes. Herein the first study on the rights and duties of CLGs is presented. We present the results of a survey performed in 35 European and 18 non-European countries with 100 participating specialists. A national CLG title is available in 60% of European countries, and in 77% of the surveyed European countries a CLG can be the main responsible head of the laboratory performing human genetic tests. However, in only 20% of European countries is a lab-report valid with only a CLGs' signature - even though the report is almost always formulated by the CLG, and an interpretation of the obtained results in a clinical context by the CLG is expected in nearly 90% of European countries. Interestingly, CLGs see patients in 30% of European countries, and are also regularly involved in student education. Overall, the CLG profession includes numerous duties, which are quite similar in all regions of the world. Strikingly, the CLG's rights and responsibilities of leading a lab, or signing a report are regulated differently according to country specific regulations. Overall, the CLG is a well-recognized profession worldwide and often working within a multidisciplinary team of human genetic diagnostics professionals.

Functional equivalence of genome sequencing analysis pipelines enables harmonized variant calling across human genetics projects.

Hundreds of thousands of human whole genome sequencing (WGS) datasets will be generated over the next few years. These data are more valuable in aggregate: joint analysis of genomes from many sources increases sample size and statistical power. A central challenge for joint analysis is that different WGS data processing pipelines cause substantial differences in variant calling in combined datasets, necessitating computationally expensive reprocessing. This approach is no longer tenable given the scale of current studies and data volumes. Here, we define WGS data processing standards that allow different groups to produce functionally equivalent (FE) results, yet still innovate on data processing pipelines. We present initial FE pipelines developed at five genome centers and show that they yield similar variant calling results and produce significantly less variability than sequencing replicates. This work alleviates a key technical bottleneck for genome aggregation and helps lay the foundation for community-wide human genetics studies.

Is it research or is it clinical? Revisiting an old frontier through the lens of next-generation sequencing technologies.

As next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) are increasingly used in the clinic, one issue often pointed out in the literature is the fact that their implementation "blurs the line" between research and healthcare. Indeed, NGS data obtained through research study may have clinical significance, and patients may consent that their data is shared in international databases used in research. This blurred line may increase the risk of therapeutic misconception, or that of over-reporting incidental findings. The law has been used to impose a distinction between the two contexts, but this distinction may not always be as clear in the practice of clinical genomics. To illustrate this, we reviewed the legal frameworks in France and Quebec on the matter, and asked the opinion of stakeholders who use NGS to help cancer and rare disease patients in practice. We found that while there are clear legal distinctions between research and clinical care, bridges between the two contexts exist, and the law focuses on providing appropriate protections to persons, whether they are patients or research participants. The technology users we interviewed expressed that their use of NGS was designed to help patients, but harbored elements pertaining to research as well as care. We hence saw that NGS technologies are often used with a double objective, both individual care and the creation of collective knowledge. Our results highlight the importance of moving towards research-based care, where clinical information can be progressively enriched with evolutive research results. We also found that there can be a misalignment between scientific experts' views and legal norms of what constitutes research or care, which should be addressed. Our method allowed us to shed light on a grey zone at the edge between research and care, where the full benefits of NGS can be yielded. We believe that this and other evidence from the realities of clinical research practice can be used to design more stable and responsible personalized medicine policies.

Rules for processing genetic data for research purposes in view of the new EU General Data Protection Regulation.

Genetic data contain sensitive health and non-health-related information about the individuals and their family members. Therefore, adopting adequate privacy safeguards is paramount when processing genetic data for research or clinical purposes. One of the major legal instruments for personal data protection in the EU is the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which has entered into force in May 2016 and repealed the Directive 95/46/EC, with an ultimate goal of enhancing effectiveness and harmonization of personal data protection in the EU. This paper explores the major provisions of the new Regulation with regard to processing genetic data, and assesses the influence of such provisions on reinforcing the legal safeguards when sharing genetic data for research purposes. The new Regulation attempts to elucidate the scope of personal data, by recognizing pseudonymized data as personal (identifiable) data, and including genetic data in the catalog of special categories of data (sensitive data). Moreover, a set of new rules is laid out in the Regulation for processing personal data under the scientific research exemption. For instance, further use of genetic data for scientific research purposes, without obtaining additional consent will be allowed, if the specific conditions is met. The new Regulation has already fueled concerns among various stakeholders, owing to the challenges that may emerge when implementing the Regulation across the countries. Notably, the provided definition for pseudonymized data has been criticized because it leaves too much room for interpretations, and it might undermine the harmonization of the data protection across the countries.

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium: Policies and Guidelines to maximize impact.

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has agreed on IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines, following extensive deliberations and discussions in 2012 and 2013, as a first step towards improving coordination of research efforts worldwide. The 25 funding members and 3 patient umbrella organizations (as of early 2013) of IRDiRC, a consortium of research funders that focuses on improving diagnosis and therapy for rare disease patients, agreed in Dublin, Ireland in April 2013 on the Policies and Guidelines that emphasize collaboration in rare disease research, the involvement of patients and their representatives in all relevant aspects of research, as well as the sharing of data and resources. The Policies and Guidelines provide guidance on ontologies, diagnostics, biomarkers, patient registries, biobanks, natural history, therapeutics, models, publication, intellectual property, and communication. Most IRDiRC members-currently nearly 50 strong-have since incorporated its policies in their funding calls and some have chosen to exceed the requirements laid out, for instance in relation to data sharing. The IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines are the first, detailed agreement of major public and private funding organizations worldwide to govern rare disease research, and may serve as a template for other areas of international research collaboration. While it is too early to assess their full impact on research productivity and patient benefit, the IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines have already contributed significantly to improving transparency and collaboration in rare disease research.