Bedside Back to Bench: Building Bridges between Basic and Clinical Genomic Research.

Genome sequencing has revolutionized the diagnosis of genetic diseases. Close collaborations between basic scientists and clinical genomicists are now needed to link genetic variants with disease causation. To facilitate such collaborations, we recommend prioritizing clinically relevant genes for functional studies, developing reference variant-phenotype databases, adopting phenotype description standards, and promoting data sharing.

Improving reporting standards for polygenic scores in risk prediction studies.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Father's care uniquely influences male neurodevelopment.

Mammalian infants depend on parental care for survival, with numerous consequences for their behavioral development. We investigated the epigenetic and neurodevelopmental mechanisms mediating the impact of early biparental care on development of alloparenting behavior, or caring for offspring that are not one's own. We find that receiving high parental care early in life leads to slower epigenetic aging of both sexes and widespread male-specific differential expression of genes related to synaptic transmission and autism in the nucleus accumbens. Examination of parental care composition indicates that high-care fathers promote a male-specific increase in excitatory synapses and increases in pup retrieval behavior as juveniles. Interestingly, females raised by high-care fathers have the opposite behavioral response and display fewer pup retrievals. These results support the concept that neurodevelopmental trajectories are programmed by different features of early-life parental care and reveal that male neurodevelopmental processes are uniquely sensitive to care by fathers.

Toward robust clinical genome interpretation: Developing a consistent terminology to characterize Mendelian disease-gene relationships-allelic requirement, inheritance modes, and disease mechanisms.

PURPOSE: The terminology used for gene-disease curation and variant annotation to describe inheritance, allelic requirement, and both sequence and functional consequences of a variant is currently not standardized. There is considerable discrepancy in the literature and across clinical variant reporting in the derivation and application of terms. Here, we standardize the terminology for the characterization of disease-gene relationships to facilitate harmonized global curation and to support variant classification within the ACMG/AMP framework. METHODS: Terminology for inheritance, allelic requirement, and both structural and functional consequences of a variant used by Gene Curation Coalition members and partner organizations was collated and reviewed. Harmonized terminology with definitions and use examples was created, reviewed, and validated. RESULTS: We present a standardized terminology to describe gene-disease relationships, and to support variant annotation. We demonstrate application of the terminology for classification of variation in the ACMG SF 2.0 genes recommended for reporting of secondary findings. Consensus terms were agreed and formalized in both Sequence Ontology (SO) and Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) ontologies. Gene Curation Coalition member groups intend to use or map to these terms in their respective resources. CONCLUSION: The terminology standardization presented here will improve harmonization, facilitate the pooling of curation datasets across international curation efforts and, in turn, improve consistency in variant classification and genetic test interpretation.

Clinical Genetics Lacks Standard Definitions and Protocols for the Collection and Use of Diversity Measures.

Genetics researchers and clinical professionals rely on diversity measures such as race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) to stratify study participants and patients for a variety of applications in research and precision medicine. However, there are no comprehensive, widely accepted standards or guidelines for collecting and using such data in clinical genetics practice. Two NIH-funded research consortia, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) and Clinical Sequencing Evidence-generating Research (CSER), have partnered to address this issue and report how REA are currently collected, conceptualized, and used. Surveying clinical genetics professionals and researchers (n = 448), we found heterogeneity in the way REA are perceived, defined, and measured, with variation in the perceived importance of REA in both clinical and research settings. The majority of respondents (>55%) felt that REA are at least somewhat important for clinical variant interpretation, ordering genetic tests, and communicating results to patients. However, there was no consensus on the relevance of REA, including how each of these measures should be used in different scenarios and what information they can convey in the context of human genetics. A lack of common definitions and applications of REA across the precision medicine pipeline may contribute to inconsistencies in data collection, missing or inaccurate classifications, and misleading or inconclusive results. Thus, our findings support the need for standardization and harmonization of REA data collection and use in clinical genetics and precision health research.

ClinGen's Pediatric Actionability Working Group: Clinical actionability of secondary findings from genome-scale sequencing in children and adolescents.

PURPOSE: Synthesis and curation of evidence regarding the clinical actionability of secondary findings (SFs) from genome-scale sequencing are needed to support decision-making on reporting of these findings. To assess actionability of SFs in children and adolescents, the Clinical Genome Resource established the Pediatric Actionability Working Group (AWG). METHODS: The Pediatric AWG modified the framework of the existing Adult AWG, which included production of summary reports of actionability for genes and associated conditions and consensus actionability scores for specific outcome-intervention pairs. Modification of the adult framework for the pediatric setting included accounting for special considerations for reporting presymptomatic or predictive genetic findings in the pediatric context, such as maintaining future autonomy by not disclosing conditions not actionable until adulthood. The Pediatric AWG then applied this new framework to genes and associated conditions with putative actionability. RESULTS: As of September 2021, the Pediatric AWG applied the new framework to 70 actionability topics representing 143 genes. Reports and scores are publicly available at www.clinicalgenome.org. CONCLUSION: The Pediatric AWG continues to curate gene-condition topics and build an evidence-based resource, supporting clinical communities and decision-makers with policy development on the return of SFs in pediatric populations.

The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources.

PURPOSE: Several groups and resources provide information that pertains to the validity of gene-disease relationships used in genomic medicine and research; however, universal standards and terminologies to define the evidence base for the role of a gene in disease and a single harmonized resource were lacking. To tackle this issue, the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) was formed. METHODS: The GenCC drafted harmonized definitions for differing levels of gene-disease validity on the basis of existing resources, and performed a modified Delphi survey with 3 rounds to narrow the list of terms. The GenCC also developed a unified database to display curated gene-disease validity assertions from its members. RESULTS: On the basis of 241 survey responses from the genetics community, a consensus term set was chosen for grading gene-disease validity and database submissions. As of December 2021, the database contained 15,241 gene-disease assertions on 4569 unique genes from 12 submitters. When comparing submissions to the database from distinct sources, conflicts in assertions of gene-disease validity ranged from 5.3% to 13.4%. CONCLUSION: Terminology standardization, sharing of gene-disease validity classifications, and resolution of curation conflicts will facilitate collaborations across international curation efforts and in turn, improve consistency in genetic testing and variant interpretation.

Genomic medicine implementation protocols in the PhenX Toolkit: tools for standardized data collection.

PURPOSE: The PhenX Toolkit ( www.phenxtoolkit.org ), an online catalog of recommended measurement protocols, facilitates cross-study analyses for research with human participants. The PhenX Steering Committee recommended genomic medicine implementation as a new research domain, with the following scope: genomic knowledge and education (both patients and providers); implementation science; changes in management and treatment; return of results; patient outcomes; and ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) associated with genomic research. METHODS: A seven-member expert Working Group convened in October 2019 to identify well-established measurement protocols for a new genomic medicine implementation domain and used the established PhenX consensus process to select measurement protocols for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit. RESULTS: The Working Group recommended 15 measurement protocols for inclusion in the PhenX Toolkit, with priority given to those with empirical evidence supporting validity. Consortia funded by the National Institutes of Health, and particularly the National Human Genome Research Institute, proved critical in identifying protocols with established utility in this research domain, and identified protocols that were developed through a rigorous process for scope elements that lacked formally validated protocols. CONCLUSION: Use of these protocols, which were released in September 2020, can facilitate standard data collection for genomic medicine implementation research.

Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource.

With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semiquantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship that correlates to a qualitative classification: "Definitive," "Strong," "Moderate," "Limited," "No Reported Evidence," or "Conflicting Evidence." Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived with this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.

Development of a consent resource for genomic data sharing in the clinical setting.

PURPOSE: Data sharing between clinicians, laboratories, and patients is essential for improvements in genomic medicine, but obtaining consent for individual-level data sharing is often hindered by a lack of time and resources. To address this issue, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) developed tools to facilitate consent, including a one-page consent form and online supplemental video with information on key topics, such as risks and benefits of data sharing. METHODS: To determine whether the consent form and video accurately conveyed key data sharing concepts, we surveyed 5,162 members of the general public. We measured comprehension at baseline, after reading the form and watching the video. Additionally, we assessed participants' attitudes toward genomic data sharing. RESULTS: Participants' performance on comprehension questions significantly improved over baseline after reading the form and continued to improve after watching the video. CONCLUSION: Results suggest reading the form alone provided participants with important knowledge regarding broad data sharing, and watching the video allowed for broader comprehension. These materials are now available at http://www.clinicalgenome.org/share . These resources will provide patients a straightforward way to share their genetic and health information, and improve the scientific community's access to data generated through routine healthcare.

Development of Clinical Domain Working Groups for the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen): lessons learned and plans for the future.

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop expertly curated and freely accessible resources defining the clinical relevance of genes and variants for use in precision medicine and research. To facilitate expert input, ClinGen has formed Clinical Domain Working Groups (CDWGs) to leverage the collective knowledge of clinicians, laboratory diagnosticians, and researchers. In the initial phase of ClinGen, CDWGs were launched in the cardiovascular, hereditary cancer, and inborn errors of metabolism clinical fields. These early CDWGs established the infrastructure necessary to implement standardized processes developed or adopted by ClinGen working groups for the interpretation of gene-disease associations and variant pathogenicity, and provided a sustainable model for the formation of future disease-focused curation groups. The establishment of CDWGs requires recruitment of international experts to broadly represent the interests of their field and ensure that assertions made are reliable and widely accepted. Building on the successes, challenges, and trade-offs made in establishing the original CDWGs, ClinGen has developed standard operating procedures for the development of CDWGs in new clinical domains, while maximizing efforts to scale up curation and facilitate involvement of external groups who wish to utilize ClinGen methods and infrastructure for expert curation.

The dbGaP data browser: a new tool for browsing dbGaP controlled-access genomic data.

The database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) Data Browser (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/ddb/) was developed in response to requests from the scientific community for a resource that enable view-only access to summary-level information and individual-level genotype and sequence data associated with phenotypic features maintained in the controlled-access tier of dbGaP. Until now, the dbGaP controlled-access environment required investigators to submit a data access request, wait for Data Access Committee review, download each data set and locally examine them for potentially relevant information. Existing unrestricted-access genomic data browsing resources (e.g. http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/, http://exac.broadinstitute.org/) provide only summary statistics or aggregate allele frequencies. The dbGaP Data Browser serves as a third solution, providing researchers with view-only access to a compilation of individual-level data from general research use (GRU) studies through a simplified controlled-access process. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will continue to improve the Browser in response to user feedback and believes that this tool may decrease unnecessary download requests, while still facilitating responsible genomic data-sharing.

The clinical imperative for inclusivity: Race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) in genomics.

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Ancestry and Diversity Working Group highlights the need to develop guidance on race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) data collection and use in clinical genomics. We present quantitative and qualitative evidence to characterize: (1) acquisition of REA data via clinical laboratory requisition forms, and (2) information disparity across populations in the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) at clinically relevant sites ascertained from annotations in ClinVar. Our requisition form analysis showed substantial heterogeneity in clinical laboratory ascertainment of REA, as well as marked incongruity among terms used to define REA categories. There was also striking disparity across REA populations in the amount of information available about clinically relevant variants in gnomAD. European ancestral populations constituted the majority of observations (55.8%), allele counts (59.7%), and private alleles (56.1%) in gnomAD at 550 loci with "pathogenic" and "likely pathogenic" expert-reviewed variants in ClinVar. Our findings highlight the importance of implementing and supporting programs to increase diversity in genome sequencing and clinical genomics, as well as measuring uncertainty around population-level datasets that are used in variant interpretation. Finally, we suggest the need for a standardized REA data collection framework to be developed through partnerships and collaborations and adopted across clinical genomics.

ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel experiences and standardized processes for disease and gene-level specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variant interpretation.

Genome-scale sequencing creates vast amounts of genomic data, increasing the challenge of clinical sequence variant interpretation. The demand for high-quality interpretation requires multiple specialties to join forces to accelerate the interpretation of sequence variant pathogenicity. With over 600 international members including clinicians, researchers, and laboratory diagnosticians, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen), funded by the National Institutes of Health, is forming expert groups to systematically evaluate variants in clinically relevant genes. Here, we describe the first ClinGen variant curation expert panels (VCEPs), development of consistent and streamlined processes for establishing new VCEPs, and creation of standard operating procedures for VCEPs to define application of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variant interpretation in specific genes or diseases. Additionally, ClinGen has created user interfaces to enhance reliability of curation and a Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group (SVI WG) to harmonize guideline specifications and ensure consistency between groups. The expansion of VCEPs represents the primary mechanism by which curation of a substantial fraction of genomic variants can be accelerated and ultimately undertaken systematically and comprehensively. We welcome groups to utilize our resources and become involved in our effort to create a publicly accessible, centralized resource for clinically relevant genes and variants.

Evidence-based assessments of clinical actionability in the context of secondary findings: Updates from ClinGen's Actionability Working Group.

The use of genome-scale sequencing allows for identification of genetic findings beyond the original indication for testing (secondary findings). The ClinGen Actionability Working Group's (AWG) protocol for evidence synthesis and semi-quantitative metric scoring evaluates four domains of clinical actionability for potential secondary findings: severity and likelihood of the outcome, and effectiveness and nature of the intervention. As of February 2018, the AWG has scored 127 genes associated with 78 disorders (up-to-date topics/scores are available at www.clinicalgenome.org). Scores across these disorders were assessed to compare genes/disorders recommended for return as secondary findings by the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) with those not currently recommended. Disorders recommended by the ACMG scored higher on outcome-related domains (severity and likelihood), but not on intervention-related domains (effectiveness and nature of the intervention). Current practices indicate that return of secondary findings will expand beyond those currently recommended by the ACMG. The ClinGen AWG evidence reports and summary scores are not intended as classifications of actionability, rather they provide a resource to aid decision makers as they determine best practices regarding secondary findings. The ClinGen AWG is working with the ACMG Secondary Findings Committee to update future iterations of their secondary findings list.

ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource.

On autopsy, a patient is found to have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. The patient's family pursues genetic testing that shows a "likely pathogenic" variant for the condition on the basis of a study in an original research publication. Given the dominant inheritance of the condition and the risk of sudden cardiac death, other family members are tested for the genetic variant to determine their risk. Several family members test negative and are told that they are not at risk for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and sudden cardiac death, and those who test positive are told that they need to be regularly monitored for cardiomyopathy on echocardiography. Five years later, during a routine clinic visit of one of the genotype-positive family members, the cardiologist queries a database for current knowledge on the genetic variant and discovers that the variant is now interpreted as "likely benign" by another laboratory that uses more recently derived population-frequency data. A newly available testing panel for additional genes that are implicated in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is initiated on an affected family member, and a different variant is found that is determined to be pathogenic. Family members are retested, and one member who previously tested negative is now found to be positive for this new variant. An immediate clinical workup detects evidence of cardiomyopathy, and an intracardiac defibrillator is implanted to reduce the risk of sudden cardiac death.

Research standardization tools: pregnancy measures in the PhenX Toolkit.

Only through concerted and well-executed research endeavors can we gain the requisite knowledge to advance pregnancy care and have a positive impact on maternal and newborn health. Yet the heterogeneity inherent in individual studies limits our ability to compare and synthesize study results, thus impeding the capacity to draw meaningful conclusions that can be trusted to inform clinical care. The PhenX Toolkit (http://www.phenxtoolkit.org), supported since 2007 by the National Institutes of Health, is a web-based catalog of standardized protocols for measuring phenotypes and exposures relevant for clinical research. In 2016, a working group of pregnancy experts recommended 15 measures for the PhenX Toolkit that are highly relevant to pregnancy research. The working group followed the established PhenX consensus process to recommend protocols that are broadly validated, well established, nonproprietary, and have a relatively low burden for investigators and participants. The working group considered input from the pregnancy experts and the broader research community and included measures addressing the mode of conception, gestational age, fetal growth assessment, prenatal care, the mode of delivery, gestational diabetes, behavioral and mental health, and environmental exposure biomarkers. These pregnancy measures complement the existing measures for other established domains in the PhenX Toolkit, including reproductive health, anthropometrics, demographic characteristics, and alcohol, tobacco, and other substances. The preceding domains influence a woman's health during pregnancy. For each measure, the PhenX Toolkit includes data dictionaries and data collection worksheets that facilitate incorporation of the protocol into new or existing studies. The measures within the pregnancy domain offer a valuable resource to investigators and clinicians and are well poised to facilitate collaborative pregnancy research with the goal to improve patient care. To achieve this aim, investigators whose work includes the perinatal population are encouraged to utilize the PhenX Toolkit in the design and implementation of their studies, thus potentially reducing heterogeneity in data measures across studies. Such an effort will enhance the overall impact of individual studies, increasing the ability to draw more meaningful conclusions that can then be translated into clinical practice.