Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on intellectual disability/autism sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), such as intellectual disability (ID) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), exhibit genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity, making them difficult to differentiate without a molecular diagnosis. The Clinical Genome Resource Intellectual Disability/Autism Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) uses systematic curation to distinguish ID/ASD genes that are appropriate for clinical testing (ie, with substantial evidence supporting their relationship to disease) from those that are not. METHODS: Using the Clinical Genome Resource gene-disease validity curation framework, the ID/Autism GCEP classified genes frequently included on clinical ID/ASD testing panels as Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Disputed, Refuted, or No Known Disease Relationship. RESULTS: As of September 2021, 156 gene-disease pairs have been evaluated. Although most (75%) were determined to have definitive roles in NDDs, 22 (14%) genes evaluated had either Limited or Disputed evidence. Such genes are currently not recommended for use in clinical testing owing to the limited ability to assess the effect of identified variants. CONCLUSION: Our understanding of gene-disease relationships evolves over time; new relationships are discovered and previously-held conclusions may be questioned. Without periodic re-examination, inaccurate gene-disease claims may be perpetuated. The ID/Autism GCEP will continue to evaluate these claims to improve diagnosis and clinical care for NDDs.

Clinical validity assessment of genes frequently tested on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility sequencing panels.

PURPOSE: Several genes on hereditary breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility test panels have not been systematically examined for strength of association with disease. We employed the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) clinical validity framework to assess the strength of evidence between selected genes and breast or ovarian cancer. METHODS: Thirty-one genes offered on cancer panel testing were selected for evaluation. The strength of gene-disease relationship was systematically evaluated and a clinical validity classification of either Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Refuted, Disputed, or No Reported Evidence was assigned. RESULTS: Definitive clinical validity classifications were made for 10/31 and 10/32 gene-disease pairs for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Two genes had a Moderate classification whereas, 6/31 and 6/32 genes had Limited classifications for breast and ovarian cancer respectively. Contradictory evidence resulted in Disputed or Refuted assertions for 9/31 genes for breast and 4/32 genes for ovarian cancer. No Reported Evidence of disease association was asserted for 5/31 genes for breast and 11/32 for ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of gene-disease association using the ClinGen clinical validity framework revealed a wide range of classifications. This information should aid laboratories in tailoring appropriate gene panels and assist health-care providers in interpreting results from panel testing.

Assessment of the Clinical Relevance of BRCA2 Missense Variants by Functional and Computational Approaches.

Many variants of uncertain significance (VUS) have been identified in BRCA2 through clinical genetic testing. VUS pose a significant clinical challenge because the contribution of these variants to cancer risk has not been determined. We conducted a comprehensive assessment of VUS in the BRCA2 C-terminal DNA binding domain (DBD) by using a validated functional assay of BRCA2 homologous recombination (HR) DNA-repair activity and defined a classifier of variant pathogenicity. Among 139 variants evaluated, 54 had ?99% probability of pathogenicity, and 73 had ?95% probability of neutrality. Functional assay results were compared with predictions of variant pathogenicity from the Align-GVGD protein-sequence-based prediction algorithm, which has been used for variant classification. Relative to the HR assay, Align-GVGD significantly (p < 0.05) over-predicted pathogenic variants. We subsequently combined functional and Align-GVGD prediction results in a Bayesian hierarchical model (VarCall) to estimate the overall probability of pathogenicity for each VUS. In addition, to predict the effects of all other BRCA2 DBD variants and to prioritize variants for functional studies, we used the endoPhenotype-Optimized Sequence Ensemble (ePOSE) algorithm to train classifiers for BRCA2 variants by using data from the HR functional assay. Together, the results show that systematic functional assays in combination with in silico predictors of pathogenicity provide robust tools for clinical annotation of BRCA2 VUS.