Search

Objective: Limb girdle muscular dystrophies (LGMDs) are a group of genetically heterogeneous autosomal conditions with some degree of phenotypic homogeneity. LGMD is defined as having onset >2 years of age with progressive proximal weakness, elevated serum creatine kinase levels and dystrophic features on muscle biopsy. Advances in massively parallel sequencing have led to a surge in genes linked to LGMD. Methods: The ClinGen Muscular Dystrophies and Myopathies gene curation expert panel (MDM GCEP, formerly Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy GCEP) convened to evaluate the strength of evidence supporting gene–disease relationships (GDR) using the ClinGen gene–disease clinical validity framework to evaluate 31 genes implicated in LGMD. Results: The GDR was exclusively LGMD for 17 genes, whereas an additional 14 genes were related to a broader phenotype encompassing congenital weakness. Four genes (CAPN3, COL6A1, COL6A2, and COL6A3) were split into two separate disease entities, based on each displaying both dominant and recessive inheritance patterns, resulting in curation of 35 GDRs. Of these, 30 (86%) were classified as definitive, 4 (11%) as moderate, and 1 (3%) as limited. Two genes, POMGNT1 and DAG1, though definitively related to myopathy, currently have insufficient evidence to support a relationship specifically with LGMD. Interpretation: The expert‐reviewed assertions on the clinical validity of genes implicated in LGMDs form an invaluable resource for clinicians and molecular geneticists. We encourage the global neuromuscular community to publish case‐level data that help clarify disputed or novel LGMD associations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective : In 2021, the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) spectrum disorders Gene Curation Expert Panel (GCEP) was established to evaluate the strength of evidence for genes previously reported to be associated with ALS. Through this endeavor, we will provide standardized guidance to laboratories on which genes should be included in clinical genetic testing panels for ALS. In this manuscript, we aimed to assess the heterogeneity in the current global landscape of clinical genetic testing for ALS. Methods : We reviewed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Genetic Testing Registry (GTR) and members of the ALS GCEP to source frequently used testing panels and compare the genes included on the tests. Results : 14 clinical panels specific to ALS from 14 laboratories covered 4 to 54 genes. All panels report on ANG , SOD1 , TARDBP , and VAPB ; 50% included or offered the option of including C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion (HRE) analysis. Of the 91 genes included in at least one of the panels, 40 (44.0%) were included on only a single panel. We could not find a direct link to ALS in the literature for 14 (15.4%) included genes. Conclusions : The variability across the surveyed clinical genetic panels is concerning due to the possibility of reduced diagnostic yields in clinical practice and risk of a missed diagnoses for patients. Our results highlight the necessity for consensus regarding the appropriateness of gene inclusions in clinical genetic ALS tests to improve its application for patients living with ALS and their families.