Chromosome-Level Genome Assembly of the Viviparous Eelpout Zoarces viviparus.

The viviparous eelpout Zoarces viviparus is a common fish across the North Atlantic and has successfully colonized habitats across environmental gradients. Due to its wide distribution and predictable phenotypic responses to pollution, Z. viviparus is used as an ideal marine bioindicator organism and has been routinely sampled over decades by several countries to monitor marine environmental health. Additionally, this species is a promising model to study adaptive processes related to environmental change, specifically global warming. Here, we report the chromosome-level genome assembly of Z. viviparus, which has a size of 663 Mb and consists of 607 scaffolds (N50 = 26 Mb). The 24 largest represent the 24 chromosomes of the haploid Z. viviparus genome, which harbors 98% of the complete Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologues defined for ray-finned fish, indicating that the assembly is highly contiguous and complete. Comparative analyses between the Z. viviparus assembly and the chromosome-level genomes of two other eelpout species revealed a high synteny, but also an accumulation of repetitive elements in the Z. viviparus genome. Our reference genome will be an important resource enabling future in-depth genomic analyses of the effects of environmental change on this important bioindicator species.

Comparison of the ABC and ACMG systems for variant classification.

The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as "maybe report" after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.