Search

Purpose With growing evidence that rare single gene disorders present in the neonatal period, there is a need for rapid, systematic, and comprehensive genomic diagnoses in ICUs to assist acute and long-term clinical decisions. This study aimed to identify genetic conditions in neonatal (NICU) and paediatric (PICU) intensive care populations. Methods We performed trio whole genome sequence (WGS) analysis on a prospective cohort of families recruited in NICU and PICU at a single site in the UK. We developed a research pipeline in collaboration with the National Health Service to deliver validated pertinent pathogenic findings within 2–3 weeks of recruitment. Results A total of 195 families had whole genome analysis performed (567 samples) and 21% received a molecular diagnosis for the underlying genetic condition in the child. The phenotypic description of the child was a poor predictor of the gene identified in 90% of cases, arguing for gene agnostic testing in NICU/PICU. The diagnosis affected clinical management in more than 65% of cases (83% in neonates) including modification of treatments and care pathways and/or informing palliative care decisions. A 2–3 week turnaround was sufficient to impact most clinical decision-making. Conclusions The use of WGS in intensively ill children is acceptable and trio analysis facilitates diagnoses. A gene agnostic approach was effective in identifying an underlying genetic condition, with phenotypes and symptomatology being primarily used for data interpretation rather than gene selection. WGS analysis has the potential to be a first-line diagnostic tool for a subset of intensively ill children. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05552-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background In genome-wide screening studies for de novo mutations underlying autism and intellectual disability, mutations in the ADNP gene are consistently reported among the most frequent. ADNP mutations have been identified in children with autism spectrum disorder comorbid with intellectual disability, distinctive facial features, and deficits in multiple organ systems. However, a comprehensive clinical description of the Helsmoortel-Van der Aa syndrome is lacking. Methods We identified a worldwide cohort of 78 individuals with likely disruptive mutations in ADNP from January 2014 to October 2016 through systematic literature search, by contacting collaborators, and through direct interaction with parents. Clinicians filled in a structured questionnaire on genetic and clinical findings to enable correlations between genotype and phenotype. Clinical photographs and specialist reports were gathered. Parents were interviewed to complement the written questionnaires. Results We report on the detailed clinical characterization of a large cohort of individuals with an ADNP mutation and demonstrate a distinctive combination of clinical features, including mild to severe intellectual disability, autism, severe speech and motor delay, and common facial characteristics. Brain abnormalities, behavioral problems, sleep disturbance, epilepsy, hypotonia, visual problems, congenital heart defects, gastrointestinal problems, short stature, and hormonal deficiencies are common comorbidities. Strikingly, individuals with the recurrent p.Tyr719* mutation were more severely affected. Conclusions This overview defines the full clinical spectrum of individuals with ADNP mutations, a specific autism subtype. We show that individuals with mutations in ADNP have many overlapping clinical features that are distinctive from those of other autism and/or intellectual disability syndromes. In addition, our data show preliminary evidence of a correlation between genotype and phenotype. This work was supported by grants from the European Research Area Networks Network of European Funding for Neuroscience Research through the Research Foundation–Flanders and the Chief Scientist Office–Ministry of Health (to RFK, GV, IG). This research was supported, in part, by grants from the Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative (Grant No. SFARI 303241 to EEE) and National Institutes of Health (Grant No. R01MH101221 to EEE). This work was also supported by the Italian Ministry of Health and ‘5 per mille’ funding (to CR). For many individuals, sequencing was provided by research initiatives like the Care4Rare Research Consortium in Canada or the Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) study in the UK. The DDD Study presents independent research commissioned by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund (Grant No. HICF-1009–003), a parallel funding partnership between the Wellcome Trust and the Department of Health, and the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute (Grant No. WT098051). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Wellcome Trust or the Department of Health. The study has UK Research Ethics Committee approval (10/H0305/83, granted by the Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee, and GEN/284/12 granted by the Republic of Ireland Research Ethics Committee). The research team acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research, through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network.

Background -Implicit in the genetic evaluation of patients with suspected genetic diseases is the assumption that the genes evaluated are causative for the disease based on robust scientific and statistical evidence. However, in the past 20 years considerable variability has existed in the study design and quality of evidence supporting reported gene-disease associations raising concerns of the validity of many published disease-causing genes. Brugada syndrome (BrS) is an arrhythmia syndrome with a risk of sudden death. More than 20 genes have been reported to cause BrS and are assessed routinely on genetic testing panels in the absence of a systematic, evidence-based evaluation of the evidence supporting the causality of these genes. Methods -We evaluated the clinical validity of genes tested by diagnostic laboratories for BrS by assembling three gene curation teams. Using an evidence-based semi-quantitative scoring system of genetic and experimental evidence for gene-disease associations, curation teams independently classified genes as demonstrating Limited, Moderate, Strong or Definitive evidence for disease causation in BrS. The classification of curator teams was reviewed by a Clinical Domain Expert Panel who could modify the classifications based on their independent review and consensus. Results -Of 21 genes curated for clinical validity, biocurators classified only 1 gene (SCN5A) as Definitive evidence, while all other genes were classified as Limited evidence. Following comprehensive review by the Clinical Domain Expert Panel, all 20 genes classified as Limited evidence were re-classified as Disputed in regards to any assertions of disease causality for BrS. Conclusions -Our results contest the clinical validity of all but one gene clinically tested and reported to be associated with BrS. These findings warrant a systematic, evidence-based evaluation for reported gene-disease associations prior to use in patient care.