The phenotypic presentation of adult individuals with SLC6A1-related neurodevelopmental disorders.

Introduction: SLC6A1 is one of the most common monogenic causes of epilepsy and is a well-established cause of neurodevelopmental disorders. SLC6A1-neurodevelopmental disorders have a consistent phenotype of mild to severe intellectual disability (ID), epilepsy, language delay and behavioral disorders. This phenotypic description is mainly based on knowledge from the pediatric population. Method: Here, we sought to describe patients with SLC6A1 variants and age above 18 years through the ascertainment of published and unpublished patients. Unpublished patients were ascertained through international collaborations, while previously published patients were collected through a literature search. Results: A total of 15 adult patients with SLC6A1 variants were included. 9/13 patients had moderate to severe ID (data not available in two). Epilepsy was prevalent (11/15) with seizure types such as absence, myoclonic, atonic, and tonic-clonic seizures. Epilepsy was refractory in 7/11, while four patients were seizure free with lamotrigine, valproate, or lamotrigine in combination with valproate. Language development was severely impaired in five patients. Behavioral disorders were reported in and mainly consisted of autism spectrum disorders and aggressive behavior. Schizophrenia was not reported in any of the patients. Discussion: The phenotype displayed in the adult patients presented here resembled that of the pediatric cohort with ID, epilepsy, and behavioral disturbances, indicating that the phenotype of SLC6A1-NDD is consistent over time. Seizures were refractory in >60% of the patients with epilepsy, indicating the lack of targeted treatment in SLC6A1-NDDs. With increased focus on repurposing drugs and on the development of new treatments, hope is that the outlook reflected here will change over time. ID appeared to be more severe in the adult patients, albeit this might reflect a recruitment bias, where only patients seen in specialized centers were included or it might be a feature of the natural history of SLC6A1-NDDs. This issue warrants to be explored in further studies in larger cohorts.

SLC6A1 variant pathogenicity, molecular function and phenotype: a genetic and clinical analysis.

Genetic variants in the SLC6A1 gene can cause a broad phenotypic disease spectrum by altering the protein function. Thus, systematically curated clinically relevant genotype-phenotype associations are needed to understand the disease mechanism and improve therapeutic decision-making. We aggregated genetic and clinical data from 172 individuals with likely pathogenic/pathogenic (lp/p) SLC6A1 variants and functional data for 184 variants (14.1% lp/p). Clinical and functional data were available for a subset of 126 individuals. We explored the potential associations of variant positions on the GAT1 3D structure with variant pathogenicity, altered molecular function and phenotype severity using bioinformatic approaches. The GAT1 transmembrane domains 1, 6 and extracellular loop 4 (EL4) were enriched for patient over population variants. Across functionally tested missense variants (n = 156), the spatial proximity from the ligand was associated with loss-of-function in the GAT1 transporter activity. For variants with complete loss of in vitro GABA uptake, we found a 4.6-fold enrichment in patients having severe disease versus non-severe disease (P = 2.9 × 10-3, 95% confidence interval: 1.5-15.3). In summary, we delineated associations between the 3D structure and variant pathogenicity, variant function and phenotype in SLC6A1-related disorders. This knowledge supports biology-informed variant interpretation and research on GAT1 function. All our data can be interactively explored in the SLC6A1 portal (https://slc6a1-portal.broadinstitute.org/).

Population Genomic Screening for Genetic Etiologies of Neurodevelopmental/Psychiatric Disorders Demonstrates Personal Utility and Positive Participant Responses.

Genomic variants that cause neurodevelopmental/psychiatric disorders (NPD) are relatively prevalent and highly penetrant. This study aimed to understand adults' immediate responses to receiving NPD-related results to inform inclusion in population-based genomic screening programs. Nine recurrent, pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) were identified from research exome data, clinically confirmed, and disclosed to adult participants of the Geisinger MyCode Community Health Initiative DiscovEHR cohort by experienced genetic counselors. A subset of in-person genetic counseling sessions (n = 27) were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using a grounded theory approach. Participant reactions were overwhelmingly positive and indicated that an NPD genetic etiology was highly valuable and personally useful. Participants frequently reported learning disabilities or other NPD that were not documented in their electronic health records and noted difficulties obtaining support for NPD needs. Most intended to share their genetic result with family members and health care providers and were interested in how their result could improve their healthcare. This study indicates that results from population-based NPD genomic screening can provide personal value for adults with NPD, were viewed positively by participants, and could improve clinical outcomes by informing symptom monitoring for NPD and co-morbidities, promoting improved health behaviors, and enhancing psychotherapeutic approaches.

Knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits of an African, African-American, and Afro-Caribbean sequencing cohort and comparisons to the original ClinSeq® cohort.

PURPOSE: Racial minority populations are underrepresented in genomics research. This study enrolled African-descended individuals in a sequencing study and reported their characteristics. METHODS: We purposively recruited 467 individuals self-identified as African, African American, or Afro-Caribbean to the ClinSeq® study and surveyed them about knowledge, motivations, expectations, and traits. Summary statistics were calculated and compared with data from the study's original cohort, which was primarily White and self-referred. RESULTS: Recruitment took five years and 83% of enrollees completed the survey. Participants had modest knowledge about benefits and limitations of sequencing (x̅s = 5.1, ranges: 0-10), and less than the original cohort (x̅ = 7.5 and 7.7, respectively). Common motivations to enroll were learning information relevant to personal health (49%) or family members' health (33%), and most had realistic expectations of sequencing. Like the original cohort, they had high levels of optimism, openness, and resilience. CONCLUSION: Early adopters may have relatively consistent personality traits irrespective of majority/minority status and recruitment methods, but high levels of genomics knowledge are not universal. Research should determine whether recruitment and consent procedures provide adequate education to promote informed choices and realistic expectations, which are vital to ethical research and increasing genomics research participation in underrepresented communities.

Evaluation of Recipients of Positive and Negative Secondary Findings Evaluations in a Hybrid CLIA-Research Sequencing Pilot.

While consensus regarding the return of secondary genomic findings in the clinical setting has been reached, debate about such findings in the research setting remains. We developed a hybrid, research-clinical translational genomics process for research exome data coupled with a CLIA-validated secondary findings analysis. Eleven intramural investigators from ten institutes at the National Institutes of Health piloted this process. Nearly 1,200 individuals were sequenced and 14 secondary findings were identified in 18 participants. Positive secondary findings were returned by a genetic counselor following a standardized protocol, including referrals for specialty follow-up care for the secondary finding local to the participants. Interviews were undertaken with 13 participants 4 months after receipt of a positive report. These participants reported minimal psychologic distress within a process to assimilate their results. Of the 13, 9 reported accessing the recommended health care services. A sample of 107 participants who received a negative findings report were surveyed 4 months after receiving it. They demonstrated good understanding of the negative secondary findings result and most expressed reassurance (64%) from that report. However, a notable minority (up to 17%) expressed confusion regarding the distinction of primary from secondary findings. This pilot shows it is feasible to couple CLIA-compliant secondary findings to research sequencing with minimal harms. Participants managed the surprise of a secondary finding with most following recommended follow up, yet some with negative findings conflated secondary and primary findings. Additional work is needed to understand barriers to follow-up care and help participants distinguish secondary from primary findings.

A randomized controlled study of a consent intervention for participating in an NIH genome sequencing study.

To make an informed choice to participate in a genome sequencing study that may yield primary and secondary findings, one understands relevant information in the context of personal values. Consent forms to enroll in a sequencing study can be long and complex. The efficacy of the professional encounter to consider the information contained in the consent form and make an informed choice is unknown. Women diagnosed with primary ovarian insufficiency and eligible for a sequencing study were randomized to participate in one of two encounters with a genetic counselor: a consent intervention using a lower literacy, less dense form or a standard consent encounter. Data were complete for 188 of 225 participants. The average time was 32 min for the intervention and 34 min for the standard, with the intervention encounter generating more questions from participants. At six weeks following consent, no differences were found between the two groups in primary outcomes: 'sequencing benefits' knowledge (d = 0.12, 95%CI: -0.03,0.27), 'sequencing limitations' knowledge (d = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.13,0.21), expected personal benefits (d = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,0.23), and decisional conflict (d = 0.04, 95%CI: -0.14,0.21). Although intentions to learn secondary variants were high, only 60% (113) of participants made an informed choice as defined by the multi-dimensional model of informed choice. We found that a modified consent intervention was as effective as a standard encounter and led to more interaction. Our data suggest that making decisions to receive secondary findings may be particularly challenging and in need of further investigation to achieve informed choice.

Web Platform vs In-Person Genetic Counselor for Return of Carrier Results From Exome Sequencing: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: A critical bottleneck in clinical genomics is the mismatch between large volumes of results and the availability of knowledgeable professionals to return them. Objective: To test whether a web-based platform is noninferior to a genetic counselor for educating patients about their carrier results from exome sequencing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized noninferiority trial conducted in a longitudinal sequencing cohort at the National Institutes of Health from February 5, 2014, to December 16, 2016, was used to compare the web-based platform with a genetic counselor. Among the 571 eligible participants, 1 to 7 heterozygous variants were identified in genes that cause a phenotype that is recessively inherited. Surveys were administered after cohort enrollment, immediately following trial education, and 1 month and 6 months later to primarily healthy postreproductive participants who expressed interest in learning their carrier results. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were applied. Interventions: A web-based platform that integrated education on carrier results with personal test results was designed to directly parallel disclosure education by a genetic counselor. The sessions took a mean (SD) time of 21 (10.6), and 27 (9.3) minutes, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes and noninferiority margins (δNI) were knowledge (0 to 8, δNI = -1), test-specific distress (0 to 30, δNI = +1), and decisional conflict (15 to 75, δNI = +6). Results: After 462 participants (80.9%) provided consent and were randomized, all but 3 participants (n = 459) completed surveys following education and counseling; 398 (86.1%) completed 1-month surveys and 392 (84.8%) completed 6-month surveys. Participants were predominantly well-educated, non-Hispanic white, married parents; mean (SD) age was 63 (63.1) years and 246 (53.6%) were men. The web platform was noninferior to the genetic counselor on outcomes assessed at 1 and 6 months: knowledge (mean group difference, -0.18; lower limit of 97.5% CI, -0.63; δNI = -1), test-specific distress (median group difference, 0; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 0; δNI = +1), and decisional conflict about choosing to learn results (mean group difference, 1.18; upper limit of 97.5% CI, 2.66; δNI = +6). There were no significant differences between the genetic counselors and web-based platform detected between modes of education delivery in disclosure rates to spouses (151 vs 159; relative risk [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.64-1.69; P > .99), children (103 vs 117; RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.36; P = .59), or siblings (91 vs 78; RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.94-1.46; P = .18). Conclusions and Relevance: This trial demonstrates noninferiority of web-based return of carrier results among postreproductive, mostly healthy adults. Replication studies among younger and more diverse populations are needed to establish generalizability. Yet return of results via a web-based platform may be sufficient for subsets of test results, reserving genetic counselors for return of results with a greater health threat. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00410241.