Delineating the genotypic and phenotypic spectrum of HECW2-related neurodevelopmental disorders.

BACKGROUND: Variants in HECW2 have recently been reported to cause a neurodevelopmental disorder with hypotonia, seizures and impaired language; however, only six variants have been reported and the clinical characteristics have only broadly been defined. METHODS: Molecular and clinical data were collected from clinical and research cohorts. Massive parallel sequencing was performed and identified individuals with a HECW2-related neurodevelopmental disorder. RESULTS: We identified 13 novel missense variants in HECW2 in 22 unpublished cases, of which 18 were confirmed to have a de novo variant. In addition, we reviewed the genotypes and phenotypes of previously reported and new cases with HECW2 variants (n=35 cases). All variants identified are missense, and the majority of likely pathogenic and pathogenic variants are located in or near the C-terminal HECT domain (88.2%). We identified several clustered variants and four recurrent variants (p.(Arg1191Gln);p.(Asn1199Lys);p.(Phe1327Ser);p.(Arg1330Trp)). Two variants, (p.(Arg1191Gln);p.(Arg1330Trp)), accounted for 22.9% and 20% of cases, respectively. Clinical characterisation suggests complete penetrance for hypotonia with or without spasticity (100%), developmental delay/intellectual disability (100%) and developmental language disorder (100%). Other common features are behavioural problems (88.9%), vision problems (83.9%), motor coordination/movement (75%) and gastrointestinal issues (70%). Seizures were present in 61.3% of individuals. Genotype-phenotype analysis shows that HECT domain variants are more frequently associated with cortical visual impairment and gastrointestinal issues. Seizures were only observed in individuals with variants in or near the HECT domain. CONCLUSION: We provide a comprehensive review and expansion of the genotypic and phenotypic spectrum of HECW2 disorders, aiding future molecular and clinical diagnosis and management.

Heterozygous variants in MYH10 associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and congenital anomalies with evidence for primary cilia-dependent defects in Hedgehog signaling.

PURPOSE: Nonmuscle myosin II complexes are master regulators of actin dynamics that play essential roles during embryogenesis with vertebrates possessing 3 nonmuscle myosin II heavy chain genes, MYH9, MYH10, and MYH14. As opposed to MYH9 and MYH14, no recognizable disorder has been associated with MYH10. We sought to define the clinical characteristics and molecular mechanism of a novel autosomal dominant disorder related to MYH10. METHODS: An international collaboration identified the patient cohort. CAS9-mediated knockout cell models were used to explore the mechanism of disease pathogenesis. RESULTS: We identified a cohort of 16 individuals with heterozygous MYH10 variants presenting with a broad spectrum of neurodevelopmental disorders and variable congenital anomalies that affect most organ systems and were recapitulated in animal models of altered MYH10 activity. Variants were typically de novo missense changes with clustering observed in the motor domain. MYH10 knockout cells showed defects in primary ciliogenesis and reduced ciliary length with impaired Hedgehog signaling. MYH10 variant overexpression produced a dominant-negative effect on ciliary length. CONCLUSION: These data presented a novel genetic cause of isolated and syndromic neurodevelopmental disorders related to heterozygous variants in the MYH10 gene with implications for disrupted primary cilia length control and altered Hedgehog signaling in disease pathogenesis.

Cobblestone Malformation in LAMA2 Congenital Muscular Dystrophy (MDC1A).

Congenital muscular dystrophy type 1A (MDC1A) is caused by recessive variants in laminin α2 (LAMA2). Patients have been found to have white matter signal abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) but rarely structural brain abnormalities. We describe the autopsy neuropathology in a 17-year-old with white matter signal abnormalities on brain MRI. Dystrophic pathology was observed in skeletal muscle, and the sural nerve manifested a mild degree of segmental demyelination and remyelination. A diffuse, bilateral cobblestone appearance, and numerous points of fusion between adjacent gyri were apparent on gross examination of the cerebrum. Brain histopathology included focal disruptions of the glia limitans associated with abnormal cerebral cortical lamination or arrested cerebellar granule cell migration. Subcortical nodular heterotopia was present within the cerebellar hemispheres. Sampling of the centrum semiovale revealed no light microscopic evidence of leukoencephalopathy. Three additional MDC1A patients were diagnosed with cobblestone malformation on brain MRI. Unlike the autopsied patient whose brain had a symmetric distribution of cobblestone pathology, the latter patients had asymmetric involvement, most severe in the occipital lobes. These cases demonstrate that cobblestone malformation may be an important manifestation of the brain pathology in MDC1A and can be present even when patients have a structurally normal brain MRI.

Impact of genetic advances and testing for hearing loss: results from a national consumer survey.

Hearing loss is a common neuro-sensory deficit; nearly 50% of children with hearing loss have a genetic etiology. With the discovery of 40 genes and more than 100 loci involved in hearing loss, genetic testing is becoming more widely available. The information obtained through genetic testing can be perceived and used in different ways by parents of deaf children and deaf adults, based on their prior knowledge and understanding of these advances. It is therefore important to clarify the feelings of these potential consumers towards genetic services for hearing loss and understand their goals for genetic testing. The present study evaluates the feelings of consumers towards the advances in the genetics of hearing loss, the motivations for pursuing testing, and the perceived impact testing may have on their lives. We surveyed 808 parents of children with hearing loss nationally and 156 young deaf adults at Gallaudet University. In this study, learning the etiology of the hearing loss was the most commonly cited motivation for pursuing genetic testing and for parents was the most commonly cited outcome that genetic testing may have on their children's lives. Culturally Deaf respondents were less likely to believe that genetic testing will impact their lives or their children's lives and were less likely to report positive feelings about advances in the genetics of hearing loss. Cultural affiliation and genetic testing status, rather than hearing status, contributed more to the participants' responses.

Provision of genetic services for hearing loss: results from a national survey and comparison to insights obtained from previous focus group discussions.

Hearing loss is a common sensory deficit and more than 50% of affected individuals have a genetic etiology. The discovery of 40 genes and more than 100 loci involved in hearing loss has made genetic testing for some of these genes widely available. Genetic services for deafness are also being sought more often due to the early identification of hearing loss through newborn screening services. The motivations for pursuing genetic testing, and how genetic services are provided to the client may differ among individuals. Additionally, information obtained through genetic testing can be perceived and used in different ways by parents of deaf children and deaf adults. This study aimed to follow up on focus group studies published earlier with a quantitative survey instrument and assess the preference of consumers for provision of genetic services. We conducted a national survey of hearing and deaf parents of children with hearing loss and of deaf adults. Data was compared and analyzed by hearing status of the participant, their community affiliation and the genetic testing status using nominal logistic regression. Consistent with our focus group results, the survey participants thought that a genetic counselor/geneticist would be the most appropriate professional to provide genetics services. Statistically significant differences were noted in the preferred choice of provider based on the genetic testing status. Parents preferred that genetic evaluation, including testing, occur either immediately at or a few months after the audiologic diagnosis of hearing loss. This data should help providers in clinical genetics keep patient preferences at the helm and provide culturally competent services.

Consumer motivations for pursuing genetic testing and their preferences for the provision of genetic services for hearing loss.

Genetic services for deafness are being increasingly sought due to the introduction of early hearing detection and intervention programs, as well as the rapid progress in the identification of deafness genes. This study aimed to assess the motivations of consumers for pursuing genetic testing as well as their preferences for provision of these services. We conducted 5 focus groups consisting of hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents, and unmarried deaf adults. Motivations for pursuing genetic testing included determining the etiology, helping to alleviate the guilt associated with the diagnosis of hearing loss in a child, and acquiring information to help them and other family members prepare for the future. Most participants thought that a genetic counselor/geneticist would be the most appropriate professional to provide genetics services. For culturally Deaf individuals, the communication method was seen as more important than the type of professional. Parents preferred that genetic evaluation, including testing, occur either immediately at or a few months after the audiologic diagnosis of hearing loss.

A focus group study of consumer attitudes toward genetic testing and newborn screening for deafness.

PURPOSE: Progress in identifying genes for deafness together with implementation of universal audiologic screening of newborns has provided the opportunity for more widespread use of molecular tests to detect genetic forms of hearing loss. Efforts to assess consumer attitudes toward these advances have lagged behind. METHODS: Consumer focus groups were held to explore attitudes toward genetic advances and technologies for hearing loss, views about newborn hearing screening, and reactions to the idea of adding molecular screening for hearing loss at birth. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and analyzed. RESULTS: Five focus groups with 44 participants including hearing parents of deaf children, deaf parents and young deaf adults were held. Focus group participants supported the use of genetic tests to identify the etiology of hearing loss but were concerned that genetic information might influence reproductive decisions. Molecular newborn screening was advocated by some; however, others expressed concern about its effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Documenting the attitudes of parents and other consumers toward genetic technologies establishes the framework for discussions on the appropriateness of molecular newborn screening for hearing loss and informs specialists about potential areas of public education necessary prior to the implementation of such screening.