Search

Abstract Autophagy regulates the degradation of damaged organelles and protein aggregates, and is critical for neuronal development, homeostasis, and maintenance, yet few neurodevelopmental disorders have been associated with pathogenic variants in genes encoding autophagy-related proteins. We report three individuals from two unrelated families with a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by speech and motor impairment, and similar facial characteristics. Rare, conserved, bi-allelic variants were identified in ATG4D, encoding one of four ATG4 cysteine proteases important for autophagosome biogenesis, a hallmark of autophagy. Autophagosome biogenesis and induction of autophagy were intact in cells from affected individuals. However, studies evaluating the predominant substrate of ATG4D, GABARAPL1, demonstrated that three of the four ATG4D patient variants functionally impair ATG4D activity. GABARAPL1 is cleaved or “primed” by ATG4D and an in vitro GABARAPL1 priming assay revealed decreased priming activity for three of the four ATG4D variants. Furthermore, a rescue experiment performed in an ATG4 tetra knockout cell line, in which all four ATG4 isoforms were knocked out by gene editing, showed decreased GABARAPL1 priming activity for the two ATG4D missense variants located in the cysteine protease domain required for priming, suggesting that these variants impair the function of ATG4D. The clinical, bioinformatic, and functional data suggest that bi-allelic loss-of-function variants in ATG4D contribute to the pathogenesis of this syndromic neurodevelopmental disorder.

Genomic medicine, an emerging medical discipline, applies the principles of evolution, developmental biology, functional genomics, and structural genomics within clinical care. Enabling widespread adoption and integration of genomic medicine into clinical practice is key to achieving precision medicine. We delineate a biological framework defining diagnostic utility of genomic testing and map the process of genomic medicine to inform integration into clinical practice. This process leverages collaboration and collective cognition of patients, principal care providers, clinical genomic specialists, laboratory geneticists, and payers. We detail considerations for referral, triage, patient intake, phenotyping, testing eligibility, variant analysis and interpretation, counseling, and management within the utilitarian limitations of health care systems. To reduce barriers for clinician engagement in genomic medicine, we provide several decision-making frameworks and tools and describe the implementation of the proposed workflow in a prototyped electronic platform that facilitates genomic care. Finally, we discuss a vision for the future of genomic medicine and comment on areas for continued efforts.

Summary: Genome-wide sequencing (GWS) is a standard of care for diagnosis of suspected genetic disorders, but the proportion of patients found to have pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants ranges from less than 30% to more than 60% in reported studies. It has been suggested that the diagnostic rate can be improved by interpreting genomic variants in the context of each affected individual’s full clinical picture and by regular follow-up and reinterpretation of GWS laboratory results.Trio exome sequencing was performed in 415 families and trio genome sequencing in 85 families in the CAUSES study. The variants observed were interpreted by a multidisciplinary team including laboratory geneticists, bioinformaticians, clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, pediatric subspecialists, and the referring physician, and independently by a clinical laboratory using standard American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) criteria. Individuals were followed for an average of 5.1 years after testing, with clinical reassessment and reinterpretation of the GWS results as necessary. The multidisciplinary team established a diagnosis of genetic disease in 43.0% of the families at the time of initial GWS interpretation, and longitudinal follow-up and reinterpretation of GWS results produced new diagnoses in 17.2% of families whose initial GWS interpretation was uninformative or uncertain. Reinterpretation also resulted in rescinding a diagnosis in four families (1.9%). Of the families studied, 33.6% had ACMG pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants related to the clinical indication. Close collaboration among clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, laboratory geneticists, bioinformaticians, and individuals’ primary physicians, with ongoing follow-up, reanalysis, and reinterpretation over time, can improve the clinical value of GWS.