Search

Summary Objective The Epilepsy Genetics Initiative (EGI) was formed in 2014 to create a centrally managed database of clinically generated exome sequence data. EGI performs systematic research‐based reanalysis to identify new molecular diagnoses that were not possible at the time of initial sequencing and to aid in novel gene discovery. Herein we report on the efficacy of this approach 3 years after inception. Methods One hundred sixty‐six individuals with epilepsy who underwent diagnostic whole exome sequencing (WES) were enrolled, including 139 who had not received a genetic diagnosis. Sequence data were transferred to the EGI and periodically reevaluated on a research basis. Results Eight new diagnoses were made as a result of updated annotations or the discovery of novel epilepsy genes after the initial diagnostic analysis was performed. In five additional cases, we provided new evidence to support or contradict the likelihood of variant pathogenicity reported by the laboratory. One novel epilepsy gene was discovered through dual interrogation of research and clinically generated WES. Significance EGI's diagnosis rate of 5.8% represents a considerable increase in diagnostic yield and demonstrates the value of periodic reinterrogation of whole exome data. The initiative's contributions to gene discovery underscore the importance of data sharing and the value of collaborative enterprises.

PurposeWhole exome sequencing is a new rapid and cost effective tool for the diagnosis of the epilepsies.MethodOur primary aim was to assess the quality of reporting of WES. Secondary aims; to compare the quality of studies based on journal type if recent ACMG guideless have made influenced reporting quality; if any outcome reporting biases exist.We analysed studies of whole exome sequencing in epilepsy. We used a self-constructed benchmark to quantitatively analyse studies, explore retrospectively if reporting trends have changed.ResultsTotal of 307 studies was included. Reporting of data was heterogenous with poor reporting of diagnostic yield in 6% of studies, incidental findings in 11%, variants of undetermined significance in 19%. Predictors of poor reporting included: Journal type, proband status and case reports. Pairwise compari- sons of genetics journals versus other journals using relative risks yielded significant differences in reporting of consanguinity status (RR 1.27 CI 1.04–1.55); variant filtering (RR 1.95 CI 1.41–2.7) and determination of pathogenicity (RR 1.35 CI 1.17–1.56).ConclusionReporting of WES data in the medical literature is heterogenous, making comparisons across studies difficult. Formal structured guidelines similar to the CONSORT guidelines are needed to address this issue further.arifshukralla@gmail.com

Rare genetic variants can cause epilepsy, and genetic testing has been widely adopted for severe, paediatric-onset epilepsies. The phenotypic consequences of common genetic risk burden for epilepsies and their potential future clinical applications have not yet been determined. Using polygenic risk scores (PRS) from a European-ancestry genome-wide association study in generalized and focal epilepsy, we quantified common genetic burden in patients with generalized epilepsy (GE-PRS) or focal epilepsy (FE-PRS) from two independent non-Finnish European cohorts (Epi25 Consortium, n = 5705; Cleveland Clinic Epilepsy Center, n = 620; both compared to 20 435 controls). One Finnish-ancestry population isolate (Finnish-ancestry Epi25, n = 449; compared to 1559 controls), two European-ancestry biobanks (UK Biobank, n = 383 656; Vanderbilt biorepository, n = 49 494), and one Japanese-ancestry biobank (BioBank Japan, n = 168 680) were used for additional replications. Across 8386 patients with epilepsy and 622 212 population controls, we found and replicated significantly higher GE-PRS in patients with generalized epilepsy of European-ancestry compared to patients with focal epilepsy (Epi25: P = 1.64×10-15; Cleveland: P = 2.85×10-4; Finnish-ancestry Epi25: P = 1.80×10-4) or population controls (Epi25: P = 2.35×10-70; Cleveland: P = 1.43×10-7; Finnish-ancestry Epi25: P = 3.11×10-4; UK Biobank and Vanderbilt biorepository meta-analysis: P = 7.99×10-4). FE-PRS were significantly higher in patients with focal epilepsy compared to controls in the non-Finnish, non-biobank cohorts (Epi25: P = 5.74×10-19; Cleveland: P = 1.69×10-6). European ancestry-derived PRS did not predict generalized epilepsy or focal epilepsy in Japanese-ancestry individuals. Finally, we observed a significant 4.6-fold and a 4.5-fold enrichment of patients with generalized epilepsy compared to controls in the top 0.5% highest GE-PRS of the two non-Finnish European cohorts (Epi25: P = 2.60×10-15; Cleveland: P = 1.39×10-2). We conclude that common variant risk associated with epilepsy is significantly enriched in multiple cohorts of patients with epilepsy compared to controls-in particular for generalized epilepsy. As sample sizes and PRS accuracy continue to increase with further common variant discovery, PRS could complement established clinical biomarkers and augment genetic testing for patient classification, comorbidity research, and potentially targeted treatment.

Summary Background Despite progress in understanding the genetics of rare epilepsies, the more common epilepsies have proven less amenable to traditional gene-discovery analyses. We aimed to assess the contribution of ultra-rare genetic variation to common epilepsies. Methods We did a case-control sequencing study with exome sequence data from unrelated individuals clinically evaluated for one of the two most common epilepsy syndromes: familial genetic generalised epilepsy, or familial or sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy. Individuals of any age were recruited between Nov 26, 2007, and Aug 2, 2013, through the multicentre Epilepsy Phenome/Genome Project and Epi4K collaborations, and samples were sequenced at the Institute for Genomic Medicine (New York, USA) between Feb 6, 2013, and Aug 18, 2015. To identify epilepsy risk signals, we tested all protein-coding genes for an excess of ultra-rare genetic variation among the cases, compared with control samples with no known epilepsy or epilepsy comorbidity sequenced through unrelated studies. Findings We separately compared the sequence data from 640 individuals with familial genetic generalised epilepsy and 525 individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy to the same group of 3877 controls, and found significantly higher rates of ultra-rare deleterious variation in genes established as causative for dominant epilepsy disorders (familial genetic generalised epilepsy: odd ratio [OR] 2·3, 95% CI 1·7–3·2, p=9·1 × 10 −8 ; familial non-acquired focal epilepsy 3·6, 2·7–4·9, p=1·1 × 10 −17 ). Comparison of an additional cohort of 662 individuals with sporadic non-acquired focal epilepsy to controls did not identify study-wide significant signals. For the individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy, we found that five known epilepsy genes ranked as the top five genes enriched for ultra-rare deleterious variation. After accounting for the control carrier rate, we estimate that these five genes contribute to the risk of epilepsy in approximately 8% of individuals with familial non-acquired focal epilepsy. Our analyses showed that no individual gene was significantly associated with familial genetic generalised epilepsy; however, known epilepsy genes had lower p values relative to the rest of the protein-coding genes (p=5·8 × 10 −8 ) that were lower than expected from a random sampling of genes. Interpretation We identified excess ultra-rare variation in known epilepsy genes, which establishes a clear connection between the genetics of common and rare, severe epilepsies, and shows that the variants responsible for epilepsy risk are exceptionally rare in the general population. Our results suggest that the emerging paradigm of targeting of treatments to the genetic cause in rare devastating epilepsies might also extend to a proportion of common epilepsies. These findings might allow clinicians to broadly explain the cause of these syndromes to patients, and lay the foundation for possible precision treatments in the future. Funding National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and Epilepsy Research UK.