Assessing the strength of evidence for genes implicated in fatty acid oxidation disorders using the ClinGen clinical validity framework.

Newborn screening is an incredibly useful tool for the early identification of many metabolic disorders, including fatty acid oxidation (FAO) disorders. In many cases, molecular tests are necessary to reach a final diagnosis, highlighting the need for a thorough evaluation of genes implicated in FAO disorders. Using the ClinGen (Clinical Genome Resource) clinical validity framework, thirty genes were analyzed for the strength of evidence supporting their association with FAO disorders. Evidence was gathered from the literature by biocurators and presented to disease experts for review in order to assign a clinical validity classification of Definitive, Strong, Moderate, Limited, Disputed, Refuted, or No Reported Evidence. Of the gene-disease relationships evaluated, 22/30 were classified as Definitive, three as Moderate, one as Limited, three as No Reported Evidence and one as Disputed. Gene-disease relationships with a Limited, Disputed, and No Reported Evidence were found on two, six, and up to four panels out of 30 FAO disorder-specific panels, respectively, in the National Institute of Health Genetic Testing Registry, while over 70% of the genes on panels are definitively associated with an FAO disorder. These results highlight the need to systematically assess the clinical relevance of genes implicated in fatty acid oxidation disorders in order to improve the interpretation of genetic testing results and diagnosis of patients with these disorders.

Determining the clinical validity of hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis susceptibility genes using the Clinical Genome Resource Clinical Validity Framework.

PURPOSE: Gene-disease associations implicated in hereditary colorectal cancer and polyposis susceptibility were evaluated using the ClinGen Clinical Validity framework. METHODS: Forty-two gene-disease pairs were assessed for strength of evidence supporting an association with hereditary colorectal cancer and/or polyposis. Genetic and experimental evidence supporting each gene-disease relationship was curated independently by two trained biocurators. Evidence was reviewed with experts and assigned a final clinical validity classification. RESULTS: Of all gene-disease pairs evaluated, 14/42 (33.3%) were Definitive, 1/42 (2.4%) were Strong, 6/42 (14.3%) were Moderate, 18/42 (42.9%) were Limited, and 3/42 (7.1%) were either No Reported Evidence, Disputed, or Refuted. Of panels in the National Institutes of Health Genetic Testing Registry, 4/26 (~15.4%) contain genes with Limited clinical evidence. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and laboratory diagnosticians should note that <60% of the genes on clinically available panels have Strong or Definitive evidence of association with hereditary colon cancer or polyposis, and >40% have only Moderate, Limited, Disputed, or Refuted evidence. Continuing to expand the structured assessment of the clinical relevance of genes listed on hereditary cancer testing panels will help clinicians and diagnostic laboratories focus the communication of genetic testing results on clinically significant genes.

The progression of the ClinGen gene clinical validity classification over time.

In order for ClinGen to maintain up-to-date gene-disease clinical validity classifications for use by clinicians and clinical laboratories, an appropriate timeline for reevaluating curated gene-disease associations will need to be determined. To provide guidance on how often a gene-disease association should be recurated, a retrospective analysis of 30 gene curations was performed. Curations were simulated at one-year intervals starting with the year of the first publication to assert disease-causing variants in the gene to observe trends in the classification over time, as well as factors that influenced changes in classification. On average, gene-disease associations spent the least amount of time in the "Moderate" classification before progressing to "Strong" or "Definitive." In contrast, gene-disease associations that spent five or more years in the "Limited" classification were most likely to remain "Limited" or become "Disputed/Refuted." Large population datasets contributed to the reclassification of several gene-disease associations from "Limited" to "Disputed/Refuted." Finally, recent advancements in sequencing technology correlated with an increase in the quantity of case-level evidence that was curated per paper. This study provided a number of key points to consider when determining how often to recurate a gene-disease association.