Ahmad N Abou Tayoun1,2,3, Saeed H Al Turki1, Andrea M Oza2, Mark J Bowser2, Amy L Hernandez2, Birgit H Funke2,4, Heidi L Rehm2,5, Sami S Amr2,5. 1. Genetics Training Program, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Laboratory for Molecular Medicine, Partners Healthcare Personalized Medicine, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Division of Genomic Diagnostics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, The University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With next generation sequencing technology improvement and cost reductions, it has become technically feasible to sequence a large number of genes in one diagnostic test. This is especially relevant for diseases with large genetic and/or phenotypic heterogeneity, such as hearing loss. However, variant interpretation remains the major bottleneck. This is further exacerbated by the lack in the clinical genetics community of consensus criteria for defining the evidence necessary to include genes on targeted disease panels or in genomic reports, and the consequent risk of reporting variants in genes with no relevance to disease. METHODS: We describe a systematic evidence-based approach for assessing gene-disease associations and for curating relevant genes for different disease aspects, including mode of inheritance, phenotypic severity, and mutation spectrum. RESULTS: By applying this approach to clinically available hearing loss gene panels with a total of 163 genes, we show that a significant number (45%) of genes lack sufficient evidence of association with disease and thus are expected to increase uncertainty and patient anxiety, in addition to intensifying the interpretation burden. Information about all curated genes is summarized. Our retrospective analysis of 539 hearing loss cases tested by our previous OtoGenomeV2 panel demonstrates the impact of including genes with weak disease association in laboratory wet-bench and interpretation processes. CONCLUSION: Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to highlight the urgent need for defining the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships for more efficient and accurate clinical testing and reporting.Genet Med 18 6, 545-553.
PURPOSE: With next generation sequencing technology improvement and cost reductions, it has become technically feasible to sequence a large number of genes in one diagnostic test. This is especially relevant for diseases with large genetic and/or phenotypic heterogeneity, such as hearing loss. However, variant interpretation remains the major bottleneck. This is further exacerbated by the lack in the clinical genetics community of consensus criteria for defining the evidence necessary to include genes on targeted disease panels or in genomic reports, and the consequent risk of reporting variants in genes with no relevance to disease. METHODS: We describe a systematic evidence-based approach for assessing gene-disease associations and for curating relevant genes for different disease aspects, including mode of inheritance, phenotypic severity, and mutation spectrum. RESULTS: By applying this approach to clinically available hearing loss gene panels with a total of 163 genes, we show that a significant number (45%) of genes lack sufficient evidence of association with disease and thus are expected to increase uncertainty and patient anxiety, in addition to intensifying the interpretation burden. Information about all curated genes is summarized. Our retrospective analysis of 539 hearing loss cases tested by our previous OtoGenomeV2 panel demonstrates the impact of including genes with weak disease association in laboratory wet-bench and interpretation processes. CONCLUSION: Our study is, to our knowledge, the first to highlight the urgent need for defining the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships for more efficient and accurate clinical testing and reporting.Genet Med 18 6, 545-553.
Authors: Melissa Sambrotta; Sandra Strautnieks; Efterpi Papouli; Peter Rushton; Barnaby E Clark; David A Parry; Clare V Logan; Lucy J Newbury; Binita M Kamath; Simon Ling; Tassos Grammatikopoulos; Bart E Wagner; John C Magee; Ronald J Sokol; Giorgina Mieli-Vergani; Joshua D Smith; Colin A Johnson; Patricia McClean; Michael A Simpson; A S Knisely; Laura N Bull; Richard J Thompson Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-03-09 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Xue Zhong Liu; Xiao Mei Ouyang; Xia Juan Xia; Jing Zheng; Arti Pandya; Fang Li; Li Lin Du; Katherine O Welch; Christine Petit; Richard J H Smith; Bradley T Webb; Denise Yan; Kathleen S Arnos; David Corey; Peter Dallos; Walter E Nance; Zheng Yi Chen Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: G Richard; L E Smith; R A Bailey; P Itin; D Hohl; E H Epstein; J J DiGiovanna; J G Compton; S J Bale Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Fabiana Alexandrino; Camila A Oliveira; Fernanda C Reis; Andréa T Maciel-Guerra; Edi L Sartorato Journal: J Appl Genet Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Angeles Mencía; Silvia Modamio-Høybjør; Nick Redshaw; Matías Morín; Fernando Mayo-Merino; Leticia Olavarrieta; Luis A Aguirre; Ignacio del Castillo; Karen P Steel; Tamas Dalmay; Felipe Moreno; Miguel Angel Moreno-Pelayo Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2009-04-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Marina T DiStefano; Sarah E Hemphill; Brandon J Cushman; Mark J Bowser; Elizabeth Hynes; Andrew R Grant; Rebecca K Siegert; Andrea M Oza; Michael A Gonzalez; Sami S Amr; Heidi L Rehm; Ahmad N Abou Tayoun Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2018-08-08 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Daniel Newsted; Emily Rosen; Bonnie Cooke; Michael M Beyea; Matthew T W Simpson; Jason A Beyea Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Andrea M Oza; Marina T DiStefano; Sarah E Hemphill; Brandon J Cushman; Andrew R Grant; Rebecca K Siegert; Jun Shen; Alex Chapin; Nicole J Boczek; Lisa A Schimmenti; Jaclyn B Murry; Linda Hasadsri; Kiyomitsu Nara; Margaret Kenna; Kevin T Booth; Hela Azaiez; Andrew Griffith; Karen B Avraham; Hannie Kremer; Heidi L Rehm; Sami S Amr; Ahmad N Abou Tayoun Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Christine D'Aguillo; Sara Bressler; Denise Yan; Rahul Mittal; Robert Fifer; Susan H Blanton; Xuezhong Liu Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2019-07-02 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Daniel Newsted; Emily Rosen; Bonnie Cooke; Michael M Beyea; Matthew T W Simpson; Jason A Beyea Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.275