A practical guide to genetic testing in endocrinology.

Rapid advances in sequencing technology have led to significant improvements in genomic analysis, resulting in increased understanding of the molecular basis of many endocrine conditions. Genomic testing for rare disease is being integrated into everyday clinical practice, as the importance of confirming a genetic diagnosis earlier in a patient's pathway helps direct their clinical care and specialized management. In England, the new nationally commissioned Genomic Medicine Service has started to deliver testing for rare and inherited disease and cancer somatic tissue via seven Genomic Laboratory Hubs. The range of genetic tests, technology employed and eligibility criteria for patient testing are all defined in the National Genomic Test Directory. This review provides practical guidance on how to access genomic testing for endocrine disease, how to interpret and relay results, and details how genetic counselling can help integrate results into ongoing care of the individual and their family. This article discusses general principles as well as specifics related to the process of genomic testing in England. We illustrate mainstream genetic testing with a clinical scenario involving an individual with inherited endocrine neoplasia, followed by a generic description of the different steps involved, including informed consent to proceed to diagnostic testing. Most genetic tests analyse multiple genes simultaneously by next-generation sequencing, and variant interpretation may yield not only pathogenic explanatory results, but also ambiguous outcomes, with variants of unknown significance or incidental findings. Delivery of results and posttest genetic counselling are therefore key components of integrating genetic testing into routine endocrine care.

WDR26 Haploinsufficiency Causes a Recognizable Syndrome of Intellectual Disability, Seizures, Abnormal Gait, and Distinctive Facial Features.

We report 15 individuals with de novo pathogenic variants in WDR26. Eleven of the individuals carry loss-of-function mutations, and four harbor missense substitutions. These 15 individuals comprise ten females and five males, and all have intellectual disability with delayed speech, a history of febrile and/or non-febrile seizures, and a wide-based, spastic, and/or stiff-legged gait. These subjects share a set of common facial features that include a prominent maxilla and upper lip that readily reveal the upper gingiva, widely spaced teeth, and a broad nasal tip. Together, these features comprise a recognizable facial phenotype. We compared these features with those of chromosome 1q41q42 microdeletion syndrome, which typically contains WDR26, and noted that clinical features are consistent between the two subsets, suggesting that haploinsufficiency of WDR26 contributes to the pathology of 1q41q42 microdeletion syndrome. Consistent with this, WDR26 loss-of-function single-nucleotide mutations identified in these subjects lead to nonsense-mediated decay with subsequent reduction of RNA expression and protein levels. We derived a structural model of WDR26 and note that missense variants identified in these individuals localize to highly conserved residues of this WD-40-repeat-containing protein. Given that WDR26 mutations have been identified in ∼1 in 2,000 of subjects in our clinical cohorts and that WDR26 might be poorly annotated in exome variant-interpretation pipelines, we would anticipate that this disorder could be more common than currently appreciated.

Assessing the clinical utility of protein structural analysis in genomic variant classification: experiences from a diagnostic laboratory.

BACKGROUND: The widespread clinical application of genome-wide sequencing has resulted in many new diagnoses for rare genetic conditions, but testing regularly identifies variants of uncertain significance (VUS). The remarkable rise in the amount of genomic data has been paralleled by a rise in the number of protein structures that are now publicly available, which may have clinical utility for the interpretation of missense and in-frame insertions or deletions. METHODS: Within a UK National Health Service genomic medicine diagnostic laboratory, we investigated the number of VUS over a 5-year period that were evaluated using protein structural analysis and how often this analysis aided variant classification. RESULTS: We found 99 novel missense and in-frame variants across 67 genes that were initially classified as VUS by our diagnostic laboratory using standard variant classification guidelines and for which further analysis of protein structure was requested. Evidence from protein structural analysis was used in the re-assessment of 64 variants, of which 47 were subsequently reclassified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic and 17 remained as VUS. We identified several case studies where protein structural analysis aided variant interpretation by predicting disease mechanisms that were consistent with the observed phenotypes, including loss-of-function through thermodynamic destabilisation or disruption of ligand binding, and gain-of-function through de-repression or escape from proteasomal degradation. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that using in silico protein structural analysis can aid classification of VUS and give insights into the mechanisms of pathogenicity. Based on our experience, we propose a generic evidence-based workflow for incorporating protein structural information into diagnostic practice to facilitate variant classification.

Using Structural Analysis In Silico to Assess the Impact of Missense Variants in MEN1.

Despite the rapid expansion in recent years of databases reporting either benign or pathogenic genetic variations, the interpretation of novel missense variants remains challenging, particularly for clinical or genetic testing laboratories where functional analysis is often unfeasible. Previous studies have shown that thermodynamic analysis of protein structure in silico can discriminate between groups of benign and pathogenic missense variants. However, although structures exist for many human disease‒associated proteins, such analysis remains largely unexploited in clinical laboratories. Here, we analyzed the predicted effect of 338 known missense variants on the structure of menin, the MEN1 gene product. Results provided strong discrimination between pathogenic and benign variants, with a threshold of >4 kcal/mol for the predicted change in stability, providing a strong indicator of pathogenicity. Subsequent analysis of seven novel missense variants identified during clinical testing of patients with MEN1 showed that all seven were predicted to destabilize menin by >4 kcal/mol. We conclude that structural analysis provides a useful tool in understanding the effect of missense variants in MEN1 and that integration of proteomic with genomic data could potentially contribute to the classification of novel variants in this disease.

Pitfalls of haplotype phasing from amplicon-based long-read sequencing.

The long-read sequencers from Pacific Bioscience (PacBio) and Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) offer the opportunity to phase mutations multiple kilobases apart directly from sequencing reads. In this study, we used long-range PCR with ONT and PacBio sequencing to phase two variants 9 kb apart in the RET gene. We also re-analysed data from a recent paper which had apparently successfully used ONT to phase clinically important haplotypes at the CYP2D6 and HLA loci. From these analyses, we demonstrate PCR-chimera formation during PCR amplification and reference alignment bias are pitfalls that need to be considered when attempting to phase variants using amplicon-based long-read sequencing technologies. These methodological pitfalls need to be avoided if the opportunities provided by long-read sequencers are to be fully exploited.

A comparison of methods for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer.

EGFR mutation testing of tumor samples is routinely performed to predict sensitivity to treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for patients with non-small cell lung cancer. At least 9 different methodologies are employed in UK laboratories, and the aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of different methods for the detection of EGFR mutations. Participating laboratories were sent coded samples with varying mutation loads (from 0% to 15%) to be tested for the p.Leu858Arg (p.L858R) missense mutation and c.2235_2249del exon 19 deletion. The p.L858R mutation and deletions within exon 19 of the EGFR gene account for ∼90% of mutation-positive cases. The 11 laboratories used their standard testing method(s) and submitted 15 sets of results for the p.L858R samples and 10 for the exon 19 deletion. The p.Leu858Arg (p.L858R) mutation was detected at levels between 1% and 7.5% by Sanger sequencing, pyrosequencing, real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), amplification refractory mutation system, and capillary electrophoresis single-strand conformation analysis. The c.2235_2249del mutation was detected at 1% to 5% by fragment size analysis, Sanger sequencing or real-time PCR. A mutation was detected in 24/25 (96%) of the samples tested which contained 5% mutated DNA. The 1% sensitivity claimed for commercial real-time PCR-targeted EGFR tests was achieved and our results show greater sensitivity for the Sanger sequencing and pyrosequencing screening methods compared to the 10% to 20% detection levels cited on clinical diagnostic reports. We conclude that multiple methodologies are suitable for the detection of acquired EGFR mutations.