The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources.

PURPOSE: Several groups and resources provide information that pertains to the validity of gene-disease relationships used in genomic medicine and research; however, universal standards and terminologies to define the evidence base for the role of a gene in disease and a single harmonized resource were lacking. To tackle this issue, the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) was formed. METHODS: The GenCC drafted harmonized definitions for differing levels of gene-disease validity on the basis of existing resources, and performed a modified Delphi survey with 3 rounds to narrow the list of terms. The GenCC also developed a unified database to display curated gene-disease validity assertions from its members. RESULTS: On the basis of 241 survey responses from the genetics community, a consensus term set was chosen for grading gene-disease validity and database submissions. As of December 2021, the database contained 15,241 gene-disease assertions on 4569 unique genes from 12 submitters. When comparing submissions to the database from distinct sources, conflicts in assertions of gene-disease validity ranged from 5.3% to 13.4%. CONCLUSION: Terminology standardization, sharing of gene-disease validity classifications, and resolution of curation conflicts will facilitate collaborations across international curation efforts and in turn, improve consistency in genetic testing and variant interpretation.

Clinical Genetic Testing for the Cardiomyopathies and Arrhythmias: A Systematic Framework for Establishing Clinical Validity and Addressing Genotypic and Phenotypic Heterogeneity.

Advances in DNA sequencing have made large, diagnostic gene panels affordable and efficient. Broad adoption of such panels has begun to deliver on the promises of personalized medicine, but has also brought new challenges such as the presence of unexpected results, or results of uncertain clinical significance. Genetic analysis of inherited cardiac conditions is particularly challenging due to the extensive genetic heterogeneity underlying cardiac phenotypes, and the overlapping, variable, and incompletely penetrant nature of their clinical presentations. The design of effective diagnostic tests and the effective use of the results depend on a clear understanding of the relationship between each gene and each considered condition. To address these issues, we developed simple, systematic approaches to three fundamental challenges: (1) evaluating the strength of the evidence suggesting that a particular condition is caused by pathogenic variants in a particular gene, (2) evaluating whether unusual genotype/phenotype observations represent a plausible expansion of clinical phenotype associated with a gene, and (3) establishing a molecular diagnostic strategy to capture overlapping clinical presentations. These approaches focus on the systematic evaluation of the pathogenicity of variants identified in clinically affected individuals, and the natural history of disease in those individuals. Here, we applied these approaches to the evaluation of more than 100 genes reported to be associated with inherited cardiomyopathies and arrhythmias including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia or cardiomyopathy, long QT syndrome, short QT syndrome, Brugada, and catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and to a set of related syndromes such as Noonan Syndrome and Fabry disease. These approaches provide a framework for delivering meaningful and accurate genetic test results to individuals with hereditary cardiac conditions.

Clinical application of whole-exome sequencing across clinical indications.

PURPOSE: We report the diagnostic yield of whole-exome sequencing (WES) in 3,040 consecutive cases at a single clinical laboratory. METHODS: WES was performed for many different clinical indications and included the proband plus two or more family members in 76% of cases. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic yield of WES was 28.8%. The diagnostic yield was 23.6% in proband-only cases and 31.0% when three family members were analyzed. The highest yield was for patients who had disorders involving hearing (55%, N = 11), vision (47%, N = 60), the skeletal muscle system (40%, N = 43), the skeletal system (39%, N = 54), multiple congenital anomalies (36%, N = 729), skin (32%, N = 31), the central nervous system (31%, N = 1,082), and the cardiovascular system (28%, N = 54). Of 2,091 cases in which secondary findings were analyzed for 56 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics-recommended genes, 6.2% (N = 129) had reportable pathogenic variants. In addition to cases with a definitive diagnosis, in 24.2% of cases a candidate gene was reported that may later be reclassified as being associated with a definitive diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Our experience with our first 3,040 WES cases suggests that analysis of trios significantly improves the diagnostic yield compared with proband-only testing for genetically heterogeneous disorders and facilitates identification of novel candidate genes.Genet Med 18 7, 696-704.