The landscape of genomic structural variation in Indigenous Australians.

Indigenous Australians harbour rich and unique genomic diversity. However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestries are historically under-represented in genomics research and almost completely missing from reference datasets1-3. Addressing this representation gap is critical, both to advance our understanding of global human genomic diversity and as a prerequisite for ensuring equitable outcomes in genomic medicine. Here we apply population-scale whole-genome long-read sequencing4 to profile genomic structural variation across four remote Indigenous communities. We uncover an abundance of large insertion-deletion variants (20-49 bp; n = 136,797), structural variants (50 b-50 kb; n = 159,912) and regions of variable copy number (>50 kb; n = 156). The majority of variants are composed of tandem repeat or interspersed mobile element sequences (up to 90%) and have not been previously annotated (up to 62%). A large fraction of structural variants appear to be exclusive to Indigenous Australians (12% lower-bound estimate) and most of these are found in only a single community, underscoring the need for broad and deep sampling to achieve a comprehensive catalogue of genomic structural variation across the Australian continent. Finally, we explore short tandem repeats throughout the genome to characterize allelic diversity at 50 known disease loci5, uncover hundreds of novel repeat expansion sites within protein-coding genes, and identify unique patterns of diversity and constraint among short tandem repeat sequences. Our study sheds new light on the dimensions and dynamics of genomic structural variation within and beyond Australia.

Indigenous Australian genomes show deep structure and rich novel variation.

The Indigenous peoples of Australia have a rich linguistic and cultural history. How this relates to genetic diversity remains largely unknown because of their limited engagement with genomic studies. Here we analyse the genomes of 159 individuals from four remote Indigenous communities, including people who speak a language (Tiwi) not from the most widespread family (Pama-Nyungan). This large collection of Indigenous Australian genomes was made possible by careful community engagement and consultation. We observe exceptionally strong population structure across Australia, driven by divergence times between communities of 26,000-35,000 years ago and long-term low but stable effective population sizes. This demographic history, including early divergence from Papua New Guinean (47,000 years ago) and Eurasian groups1, has generated the highest proportion of previously undescribed genetic variation seen outside Africa and the most extended homozygosity compared with global samples. A substantial proportion of this variation is not observed in global reference panels or clinical datasets, and variation with predicted functional consequence is more likely to be homozygous than in other populations, with consequent implications for medical genomics2. Our results show that Indigenous Australians are not a single homogeneous genetic group and their genetic relationship with the peoples of New Guinea is not uniform. These patterns imply that the full breadth of Indigenous Australian genetic diversity remains uncharacterized, potentially limiting genomic medicine and equitable healthcare for Indigenous Australians.

More than dirt: Sedimentary ancient DNA and Indigenous Australia.

The rise of sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA) studies has opened new possibilities for studying past environments. This groundbreaking area of genomics uses sediments to identify organisms, even in cases where macroscopic remains no longer exist. Managing this substrate in Indigenous Australian contexts, however, requires special considerations. Sediments and soils are often considered as waste by-products during archaeological and paleontological excavations and are not typically regulated by the same ethics guidelines utilised in mainstream 'western' research paradigms. Nevertheless, the product of sedaDNA work-genetic information from past fauna, flora, microbial communities and human ancestors-is likely to be of cultural significance and value for Indigenous peoples. This article offers an opinion on the responsibilities of researchers in Australia who engage in research related to this emerging field, particularly when it involves Indigenous communities. One aspect that deserves consideration in such research is the concept of benefit sharing. Benefit sharing refers to the practice of ensuring that the benefits that arise from research are shared equitably with the communities from which the research data were derived. This practice is particularly relevant in research that involves Indigenous communities, who may have unique cultural and spiritual connections to the research material. We argue that the integration of Traditional Knowledges into sedaDNA research would add enormous value to research and its outcomes by providing genomic outputs alongside and within the rich context of multimillennia oral histories.

Beyond platitudes: a qualitative study of Australian Aboriginal people's perspectives on biobanking.

BACKGROUND: Biobanks are vital resources for genetics and genomics, and it is broadly recognised that for maximal benefit it is essential that they include samples and data from diverse ancestral groups. The inclusion of First Nations people, in particular, is important to prevent biobanking research from exacerbating existing health inequities, and to ensure that these communities share in the benefits arising from research. AIMS: To explore the perspectives of Australian Aboriginal people whose tissue - or that of their family members - has been stored in the biobank of the National Centre for Indigenous Genomics (NCIG). METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 42 Aboriginal people from the Titjikala, Galiwinku, Tiwi Islands, Yarrabah, Fitzroy Crossing, Derby, One Arm Point and Mulan communities, as well as a formal discussion with A. Hermes, an Indigenous Community Engagement Coordinator at the NCIG who had conducted the interviews. The interviews and the structured discussion were double coded using a procedure informed by Charmaz's outline of grounded theory analysis and Morse's outline of the cognitive basis of qualitative research. RESULTS: In this article, we report on A. Hermes' interviews with members from the above Aboriginal communities, as well as on her personal views, experiences, and interpretations of the interviews she conducted with other community members. We found that participation in the NCIG biobank raised issues around broken trust, grief and loss, but also - somewhat unexpectedly - was perceived as a source of empowerment, hope and reconnection. CONCLUSIONS: This research reminds us (again) of the need to engage deeply with communities in order to respond appropriately with respect for their cultural values and norms, and to develop culturally relevant policies and processes that enhance the benefits of biobank participation and minimise potential harms.

Barriers and Considerations for Diagnosing Rare Diseases in Indigenous Populations.

Advances in omics and specifically genomic technologies are increasingly transforming rare disease diagnosis. However, the benefits of these advances are disproportionately experienced within and between populations, with Indigenous populations frequently experiencing diagnostic and therapeutic inequities. The International Rare Disease Research Consortium (IRDiRC) multi-stakeholder partnership has been advancing toward the vision of all people living with a rare disease receiving an accurate diagnosis, care, and available therapy within 1 year of coming to medical attention. In order to further progress toward this vision, IRDiRC has created a taskforce to explore the access barriers to diagnosis of rare genetic diseases faced by Indigenous peoples, with a view of developing recommendations to overcome them. Herein, we provide an overview of the state of play of current barriers and considerations identified by the taskforce, to further stimulate awareness of these issues and the passage toward solutions. We focus on analyzing barriers to accessing genetic services, participating in genomic research, and other aspects such as concerns about data sharing, the handling of biospecimens, and the importance of capacity building.

Equitable Expanded Carrier Screening Needs Indigenous Clinical and Population Genomic Data.

Expanded carrier screening (ECS) for recessive monogenic diseases requires prior knowledge of genomic variation, including DNA variants that cause disease. The composition of pathogenic variants differs greatly among human populations, but historically, research about monogenic diseases has focused mainly on people with European ancestry. By comparison, less is known about pathogenic DNA variants in people from other parts of the world. Consequently, inclusion of currently underrepresented Indigenous and other minority population groups in genomic research is essential to enable equitable outcomes in ECS and other areas of genomic medicine. Here, we discuss this issue in relation to the implementation of ECS in Australia, which is currently being evaluated as part of the national Government's Genomics Health Futures Mission. We argue that significant effort is required to build an evidence base and genomic reference data so that ECS can bring significant clinical benefit for many Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Australians. These efforts are essential steps to achieving the Australian Government's objectives and its commitment "to leveraging the benefits of genomics in the health system for all Australians." They require culturally safe, community-led research and community involvement embedded within national health and medical genomics programs to ensure that new knowledge is integrated into medicine and health services in ways that address the specific and articulated cultural and health needs of Indigenous people. Until this occurs, people who do not have European ancestry are at risk of being, in relative terms, further disadvantaged.