Search

Myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) is a form of muscular dystrophy causing progressive muscle loss and weakness. Although clinical features can manifest at any age, it is the most common form of muscular dystrophy with onset in adulthood. DM1 is an autosomal dominant condition, resulting from an unstable CTG expansion in the 3'-untranslated region of the myotonic dystrophy protein kinase (DMPK) gene. The age of onset and the severity of the phenotype are roughly correlated with the size of the CTG expansion. Multiple methodologies can be used to diagnose affected individuals with DM1, including polymerase chain reaction, Southern blot, and triplet repeat-primed polymerase chain reaction. Recently, triplet repeat interruptions have been described, which may affect clinical outcomes of a fully-variable allele in DMPK. This document supersedes the Technical Standards and Guidelines for Myotonic Dystrophy originally published in 2009 and reaffirmed in 2015. It is designed for genetic testing professionals who are already familiar with the disease and the methods of analysis., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Honey V. Reddi, Benjamin E. Kang, and Lora J.H. Bean all serve as directors in clinical laboratories that perform a breadth of genetic and genomic analyses on a fee-for-service basis. Honey V. Reddi is a Consultant Director for Biofidelity Inc. Bryce A. Seifert is a salaried employee of Guidehouse, LLP. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Funding and support listed here did not support development of this document unless included in the acknowledgments section. Noura S. Abul-Husn is an equity holder of 23andMe; serves as a scientific advisory board member for Allelica; received personal fees from Genentech, Allelica, and 23andMe; received research funding from Akcea; and was previously employed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Laura M. Amendola is a shareholder of Illumina, Inc. Wendy K. Chung is a member of the scientific advisory board of Regeneron Genetics Center and on the Board of Directors of Prime Medicine and Rallybio. Douglas R. Stewart is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics of the National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD and also performs contract clinical telehealth services for Genome Medical, Inc in accordance with relevant NCI ethics policies. All other authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Carrier screening has historically assessed a relatively small number of autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions selected based on frequency in a specific subpopulation and association with severe morbidity or mortality. Advances in genomic technologies enable simultaneous screening of individuals for several conditions. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recently published a clinical practice resource that presents a framework when offering screening for autosomal recessive and X-linked conditions during pregnancy and preconception and recommends a tier-based approach when considering the number of conditions to screen for and their frequency within the US population in general. This laboratory technical standard aims to complement the practice resource and to put forth considerations for clinical laboratories and clinicians who offer preconception/prenatal carrier screening., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Saurav Guha, Mahmoud Aarabi, Marina DiStefano, and Erin Wakeling are directors of molecular testing laboratories that offer carrier screening. Honey V. Reddi is a Consultant Director for Biofidelity Inc. Jeffrey S. Dungan is a member of the Advisory Board for Informed DNA and Medical Codirector at Insight Medical Genetics, which provides genetic laboratory services. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs), which often aggregate results from genome-wide association studies, can bridge the gap between initial discovery efforts and clinical applications for the estimation of disease risk using genetics. However, there is notable heterogeneity in the application and reporting of these risk scores, which hinders the translation of PRSs into clinical care. Here, in a collaboration between the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Complex Disease Working Group and the Polygenic Score (PGS) Catalog, we present the Polygenic Risk Score Reporting Standards (PRS-RS), in which we update the Genetic Risk Prediction Studies (GRIPS) Statement to reflect the present state of the field. Drawing on the input of experts in epidemiology, statistics, disease-specific applications, implementation and policy, this comprehensive reporting framework defines the minimal information that is needed to interpret and evaluate PRSs, especially with respect to downstream clinical applications. Items span detailed descriptions of study populations, statistical methods for the development and validation of PRSs and considerations for the potential limitations of these scores. In addition, we emphasize the need for data availability and transparency, and we encourage researchers to deposit and share PRSs through the PGS Catalog to facilitate reproducibility and comparative benchmarking. By providing these criteria in a structured format that builds on existing standards and ontologies, the use of this framework in publishing PRSs will facilitate translation into clinical care and progress towards defining best practice.

Background: ACMG/AMP and AMP/ASCO/CAP have released guidelines for variation interpretation, and ESHG for diagnostic sequencing. These guidelines contain recommendations including the use of computational prediction methods. The guidelines per se and the way they are implemented cause some problems., Methods: Logical reasoning based on domain knowledge., Results: According to the guidelines, several methods have to be used and they have to agree. This means that the methods with the poorest performance overrule the better ones. The choice of the prediction method(s) should be made by experts  based on systematic benchmarking studies reporting all the relevant performance measures. Currently variation interpretation methods have been applied mainly to amino acid substitutions and splice site variants; however, predictors for some other types of variations are available and there will be tools for new application areas in the near future. Common problems in prediction method usage are discussed. The number of features used for method training or the number of variation types predicted by a tool are not indicators of method performance. Many published gene, protein or disease-specific benchmark studies suffer from too small dataset rendering the results useless. In the case of binary predictors, equal number of positive and negative cases is beneficial for training, the imbalance has to be corrected for performance assessment. Predictors cannot be better than the data they are based on and used for training and testing. Minor allele frequency (MAF) can help to detect likely benign cases, but the recommended MAF threshold is apparently too high. The fact that many rare variants are disease-causing or -related does not mean that rare variants in general would be harmful. How large a portion of the tested variants a tool can predict (coverage) is not a quality measure., Conclusion: Methods used for variation interpretation have to be carefully selected. It should be possible to use only one predictor, with proven good performance or a limited number of complementary predictors with state-of-the-art performance. Bear in mind that diseases and pathogenicity have a continuum and variants are not dichotomic i.e. either pathogenic or benign, either., (© 2020 The Authors. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Dynamic consent aims to empower research partners and facilitate active participation in the research process. Used within the context of biobanking, it gives individuals access to information and control to determine how and where their biospecimens and data should be used. We present Dwarna-a web portal for 'dynamic consent' that acts as a hub connecting the different stakeholders of the Malta Biobank: biobank managers, researchers, research partners, and the general public. The portal stores research partners' consent in a blockchain to create an immutable audit trail of research partners' consent changes. Dwarna's structure also presents a solution to the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation's right to erasure-a right that is seemingly incompatible with the blockchain model. Dwarna's transparent structure increases trustworthiness in the biobanking process by giving research partners more control over which research studies they participate in, by facilitating the withdrawal of consent and by making it possible to request that the biospecimen and associated data are destroyed.

Structural variants (SVs) rearrange large segments of DNA 1 and can have profound consequences in evolution and human disease 2,3 . As national biobanks, disease-association studies, and clinical genetic testing have grown increasingly reliant on genome sequencing, population references such as the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) 4 have become integral in the interpretation of single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) 5 . However, there are no reference maps of SVs from high-coverage genome sequencing comparable to those for SNVs. Here we present a reference of sequence-resolved SVs constructed from 14,891 genomes across diverse global populations (54% non-European) in gnomAD. We discovered a rich and complex landscape of 433,371 SVs, from which we estimate that SVs are responsible for 25-29% of all rare protein-truncating events per genome. We found strong correlations between natural selection against damaging SNVs and rare SVs that disrupt or duplicate protein-coding sequence, which suggests that genes that are highly intolerant to loss-of-function are also sensitive to increased dosage 6 . We also uncovered modest selection against noncoding SVs in cis-regulatory elements, although selection against protein-truncating SVs was stronger than all noncoding effects. Finally, we identified very large (over one megabase), rare SVs in 3.9% of samples, and estimate that 0.13% of individuals may carry an SV that meets the existing criteria for clinically important incidental findings 7 . This SV resource is freely distributed via the gnomAD browser 8 and will have broad utility in population genetics, disease-association studies, and diagnostic screening.

The development of clinical practice guidelines for medical genetics and genomics specialty is a key step in translating basic and clinical genetic research into evidence-based and precision clinical services. This paper briefly expounds the principles of writing high-quality and trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. According to these principles, the management framework, writing process, review and revision procedures, and application monitoring of medical genetic specialty guidelines are described. Systematic review of relevant literature for evidence applicable to the screening, diagnosis, counseling, treatment and prevention of specific genetic diseases is summarized. Specific requirements for writing and reviewing high-quality professional guidelines for medical genetics are introduced. These principles and requirements can ensure that the evidence-based methods and recommendations in the written guidelines conform to current international standards and have specific clinical purposes, scope of practice and time-tracking mechanism. Implementation of such guidelines can promote the translation of basic and clinical genetic research, promote cooperation of medical genetics and other clinical specialties and coordination of interdisciplinary clinical practice guidelines, and provide effective and safe clinical services for patients and their families.

Gene sequencing panels are a powerful diagnostic tool for many clinical presentations associated with genetic disorders. Advances in DNA sequencing technology have made gene panels more economical, flexible, and efficient. Because the genes included on gene panels vary widely between laboratories in gene content (e.g., number, reason for inclusion, evidence level for gene-disease association) and technical completeness (e.g., depth of coverage), standards that address technical and clinical aspects of gene panels are needed. This document serves as a technical standard for laboratories designing, offering, and reporting gene panel testing. Although these principles can apply to multiple indications for genetic testing, the primary focus is on diagnostic gene panels (as opposed to carrier screening or predictive testing) with emphasis on technical considerations for the specific genes being tested. This technical standard specifically addresses the impact of gene panel content on clinical sensitivity, specificity, and validity-in the context of gene evidence for contribution to and strength of evidence for gene-disease association-as well as technical considerations such as sequencing limitations, presence of pseudogenes/gene families, mosaicism, transcript choice, detection of copy-number variants, reporting, and disclosure of assay limitations.

PurposeThe purpose of this document is to provide guidance for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS, also known as massively parallel sequencing or MPS) in Canadian clinical genetic laboratories for detection of genetic variants in genomic DNA and mitochondrial DNA for inherited disorders, as well as somatic variants in tumour DNA for acquired cancers. They are intended for Canadian clinical laboratories engaged in developing, validating and using NGS methods. METHODS OF STATEMENT DEVELOPMENT: The document was drafted by the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists (CCMG) Ad Hoc Working Group on NGS Guidelines to make recommendations relevant to NGS. The statement was circulated for comment to the CCMG Laboratory Practice and Clinical Practice committees, and to the CCMG membership. Following incorporation of feedback, the document was approved by the CCMG Board of Directors. DISCLAIMER: The CCMG is a Canadian organisation responsible for certifying medical geneticists and clinical laboratory geneticists, and for establishing professional and ethical standards for clinical genetics services in Canada. The current CCMG Practice Guidelines were developed as a resource for clinical laboratories in Canada and should not be considered to be inclusive of all information laboratories should consider in the validation and use of NGS for a clinical laboratory service., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Specialists of human genetic diagnostics can be divided into four groups: Medical Geneticists (MDG), Genetic Nurses and/or Counsellors (GN/GC), Clinical Laboratory Geneticists (CLG) and Laboratory Genetics Technicians (LGT). While the first two groups are in direct patient contact, the work of the latter two, of equal importance for patient care, are often hidden as they work behind the scenes. Herein the first study on the rights and duties of CLGs is presented. We present the results of a survey performed in 35 European and 18 non-European countries with 100 participating specialists. A national CLG title is available in 60% of European countries, and in 77% of the surveyed European countries a CLG can be the main responsible head of the laboratory performing human genetic tests. However, in only 20% of European countries is a lab-report valid with only a CLGs' signature - even though the report is almost always formulated by the CLG, and an interpretation of the obtained results in a clinical context by the CLG is expected in nearly 90% of European countries. Interestingly, CLGs see patients in 30% of European countries, and are also regularly involved in student education. Overall, the CLG profession includes numerous duties, which are quite similar in all regions of the world. Strikingly, the CLG's rights and responsibilities of leading a lab, or signing a report are regulated differently according to country specific regulations. Overall, the CLG is a well-recognized profession worldwide and often working within a multidisciplinary team of human genetic diagnostics professionals.

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors., (Copyright © 2019 American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advances in genetics and genomics require that healthcare professionals manage and incorporate new technologies into the appropriate clinical practice. The aim of this study was to identify core competencies in genetics for non-geneticists, both physicians and non-physicians., Methods: We performed a literature review by searching MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science databases to identify studies reporting competencies in genetics in terms of knowledge, attitudes and abilities for non-genetic healthcare professionals. Furthermore, we conducted a survey according to a modified Delphi method, involving genetics experts to evaluate the competencies to be included as items of the curricula., Results: Three eligible documents were identified and 3 Delphi rounds were carried out to reach a consensus on the competencies to be incorporated in the curricula. With reference to the curriculum for physicians, 19 items were included in the knowledge domain, 3 in the attitudes and 10 in the abilities domain. We developed two different curricula for non-physicians: one specific for those working in genetic services (20 items in the knowledge domain, 3 in the attitudes and 12 in the abilities) and one for those not working in genetic services (10 items in the knowledge domain, 3 in the attitudes and 2 in the abilities)., Conclusions: We developed 3 curricula in genetics addressed to non-genetic healthcare professionals. They differ in the "knowledge" and "abilities", while the "attitudes" are the same for all the healthcare professionals. Although some concerns about the generalizability of the findings could arise due to the Italian perspective, we envisage the curricula can be used for genetics educational programs in several contexts.

The Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH) proposes a data access policy model-"registered access"-to increase and improve access to data requiring an agreement to basic terms and conditions, such as the use of DNA sequence and health data in research. A registered access policy would enable a range of categories of users to gain access, starting with researchers and clinical care professionals. It would also facilitate general use and reuse of data but within the bounds of consent restrictions and other ethical obligations. In piloting registered access with the Scientific Demonstration data sharing projects of GA4GH, we provide additional ethics, policy and technical guidance to facilitate the implementation of this access model in an international setting.

Amino acid abnormalities are observed in a broad spectrum of inherited metabolic diseases, such as disorders of amino acid metabolism and transport, organic acidemias, and ureagenesis defects. Comprehensive analysis of physiologic amino acids in blood, urine, and cerebrospinal fluid is typically performed in the following clinical settings: evaluation of symptomatic patients in whom a diagnosis is not known; evaluation of previously diagnosed patients to monitor treatment efficacy; evaluation of asymptomatic or presymptomatic (at-risk) relatives of known patients; follow-up testing for an abnormal newborn screen; and assessment of dietary protein adequacy or renal function in general patient populations. Currently, the most common analytical method to quantify amino acids is based on ion exchange chromatography using post-column derivatization with ninhydrin and spectrophotometric detection. Newer methodologies are based on liquid chromatographic separation with detection by mass spectrometry or spectrophotometry. Amino acid analysis by nonseparation methods, such as the flow injection-tandem mass spectrometric (MS/MS) method used for newborn screening, is considered inadequate for the diagnosis of at-risk patients. The purpose of this document is to provide a technical standard for amino acid analysis as applied to the diagnosis and management of inborn errors of metabolism.

Organic acid analysis detects accumulation of organic acids in urine and other body fluids and is a crucial first-tier laboratory test for a broad spectrum of inborn errors of metabolism. It is also frequently ordered as follow-up for a positive newborn screen result, as recommended by American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics newborn screening ACTion sheets and algorithms. The typical assay is performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. These technical standards were developed to provide guidance for laboratory practices in organic acid analysis, interpretation, and reporting. In addition, new diagnostic biomarkers for recently discovered organic acidurias have been added.

The main objective of our study was to explore whether, and to what extent, genetic counselors' characteristics impact on their tasks in practice. Specifically, we explored the complementariness between genetic counselors and medical geneticists and therefore looked at the most relevant tasks of genetic counselors, according to genetic counselors themselves and according to the medical geneticists they work with. A total of 104 genetic counselors and 29 medical geneticists from 15 countries completed a purposefully designed questionnaire. Results showed that most genetic counselors in Europe perform similar tasks, irrespective of their backgrounds. When looking at the factors influencing genetic counselors' roles data showed that the type of tasks performed by genetic counselors is associated with the years of experience in the field, not with their background or education. Of particular interest was the consensus between genetic counselors and medical geneticists regarding the genetic counselor's role. Not surprisingly, tasks with more psychosocial implications were seen as genetic counselors' eligibility while tasks with more medical implications were seen as medical geneticists' attribution. Our study shows that most genetic counselors work in tune with international recommendations and seem to be supportive of multidisciplinary teams. Corroborating our data with previous research, we discuss potential implications for practice and training in genetic counseling., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, including editing of the germline. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. This document provides the background to the Recommendations. Germline gene editing is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if germline gene editing would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique could help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? This Background document summarizes the scientific developments and expectations regarding germline gene editing, legal regulations at the European level, and ethics for three different settings (basic research, preclinical research and clinical applications). In ethical terms, we argue that the deontological objections (e.g., gene editing goes against nature) do not seem convincing while consequentialist objections (e.g., safety for the children thus conceived and following generations) require research, not all of which is allowed in the current legal situation in European countries. Development of this Background document and Recommendations reflects the responsibility to help society understand and debate the full range of possible implications of the new technologies, and to contribute to regulations that are adapted to the dynamics of the field while taking account of ethical considerations and societal concerns.

Technological developments in gene editing raise high expectations for clinical applications, first of all for somatic gene editing but in theory also for germline gene editing (GLGE). GLGE is currently not allowed in many countries. This makes clinical applications in these countries impossible now, even if GLGE would become safe and effective. What were the arguments behind this legislation, and are they still convincing? If a technique can help to avoid serious genetic disorders, in a safe and effective way, would this be a reason to reconsider earlier standpoints? The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) together developed a Background document and Recommendations to inform and stimulate ongoing societal debates. After consulting its membership and experts, this final version of the Recommendations was endorsed by the Executive Committee and the Board of the respective Societies in May 2017. Taking account of ethical arguments, we argue that both basic and pre-clinical research regarding GLGE can be justified, with conditions. Furthermore, while clinical GLGE would be totally premature, it might become a responsible intervention in the future, but only after adequate pre-clinical research. Safety of the child and future generations is a major concern. Future discussions must also address priorities among reproductive and potential non-reproductive alternatives, such as PGD and somatic editing, if that would be safe and successful. The prohibition of human germline modification, however, needs renewed discussion among relevant stakeholders, including the general public and legislators.

PurposeTo describe the frequency and nature of differences in variant classifications between clinicians and genetic testing laboratories.MethodsRetrospective review of variants identified through genetic testing ordered in routine clinical care by clinicians in the Stanford Center for Inherited Cardiovascular Disease. We compared classifications made by clinicians, the testing laboratory, and other laboratories in ClinVar.ResultsOf 688 laboratory classifications, 124 (18%) differed from the clinicians' classifications. Most differences in classification would probably affect clinical care of the patient and/or family (83%, 103/124). The frequency of discordant classifications differed depending on the testing laboratory (P < 0.0001) and the testing laboratory's classification (P < 0.00001). For the majority (82/124, 66%) of discordant classifications, clinicians were more conservative (less likely to classify a variant pathogenic or likely pathogenic). The clinicians' classification was discordant with one or more submitter in ClinVar in 49.1% (28/57) of cases, while the testing laboratory's classification was discordant with a ClinVar submitter in 82.5% of cases (47/57, P = 0.0002).ConclusionThe clinical team disagreed with the laboratory's classification at a rate similar to that of reported disagreements between laboratories. Most of this discordance was clinically significant, with clinicians tending to be more conservative than laboratories in their classifications.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

PurposeTesting for inborn errors of metabolism is performed by clinical laboratories worldwide, each utilizing laboratory-developed procedures. We sought to summarize performance in the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) proficiency testing (PT) program and identify opportunities for improving laboratory quality. When evaluating PT data, we focused on a subset of laboratories that have participated in at least one survey since 2010.MethodsAn analysis of laboratory performance (2004 to 2014) on the Biochemical Genetics PT Surveys, a program administered by CAP and the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Analytical and interpretive performance was evaluated for four tests: amino acids, organic acids, acylcarnitines, and mucopolysaccharides.ResultsSince 2010, 150 laboratories have participated in at least one of four PT surveys. Analytic sensitivities ranged from 88.2 to 93.4%, while clinical sensitivities ranged from 82.4 to 91.0%. Performance was higher for US participants and for more recent challenges. Performance was lower for challenges with subtle findings or complex analytical patterns.ConclusionUS clinical biochemical genetics laboratory proficiency is satisfactory, with a minority of laboratories accounting for the majority of errors. Our findings underscore the complex nature of clinical biochemical genetics testing and highlight the necessity of continuous quality management.

Clinical genetics laboratories have recently adopted guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants set by the American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP). The use of in silico algorithms to predict whether amino acid substitutions result in human disease is inconsistent across clinical laboratories. The clinical genetics community must carefully consider how in silico predictions can be incorporated into variant interpretation in clinical practice.Please see related Research article: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1353-5.

The aim of this study is to describe the perceptions and recommendations of Israeli genetic experts in regard to culturally competent genetic counseling. Qualitative data was collected from 15 semi-structured interviews with Israeli genetics experts. Recurring themes were identified using "thematic analysis" and coded by means of "grounded theory". Our analysis divides data from the genetic experts' interviews into four main themes: Why is culturally competent genetic counseling important? (Describing its contribution to individuals and to society); who is the recipient of culturally competent genetic counseling? (Differentiating the needs of counselees based on genetic education, cultural/religious characteristics and geographic location); what should we include in culturally competent genetic counseling? (Addressing the contents that counseling should convey); how should we perform culturally competent genetic counseling? (Addressing the methods that counseling should employ). In light of the study, we recommend lengthening the genetic counseling session so that counselors will be able to truly gauge all the prior knowledge of the counselees, their religious beliefs, norms, values and attitudes towards genetic testing. We further recommend that students continue to study genetics further into high school. Finally, we suggest adding a preparation session, similar to a prenatal course, to the genetic counseling of lay people so that their genetic knowledge, attitudes and perceptions will be enhanced, leading to more efficient genetic counseling and more informed decisions.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other health-care providers, to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations.Genet Med advance online publication 26 January 2017.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other health-care providers, to help them provide quality medical genetic services. Adherence to these recommendations does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. It may be prudent, however, to document in the patient's record the rationale for any significant deviation from these recommendations.Genet Med advance online publication 05 January 2017.

Whole-exome/whole-genome sequencing (WES/WGS) has the potential to enhance genetic diagnosis of rare disease, and is increasingly becoming part of routine clinical care in mainstream medicine. Effective translation will require ongoing efforts in a number of areas including: selection of appropriate patients, provision of effective consent, pre- and post-test genetic counselling, improving variant interpretation algorithms and practices, and management of secondary findings including those found incidentally and those actively sought. Allied to this is the need for an effective education programme for all members of clinical teams involved in care of patients with rare disease, as well as to maintain public confidence in the use of these technologies. We established a Genomic Medicine Multidisciplinary Team (GM-MDT) in 2014 to build on the experiences of earlier successful research-based WES/WGS studies, to address these needs and to review results including pertinent and secondary findings. Here we report on a qualitative study of decision-making in the GM-MDT combined with analysis of semi-structured interviews with GM-MDT members. Study findings show that members appreciate the clinical and scientific diversity of the GM-MDT and value it for education and oversight. To date, discussions have focussed on case selection including the extent and interpretation of clinical and family history information required to establish likely monogenic aetiology and inheritance model. Achieving a balance between effective use of WES/WGS - prioritising cases in a diverse and highly complex patient population where WES/WGS will be tractable - and meeting the recruitment targets of a large project is considered challenging.

Hundreds of thousands of individuals have been genotyped in the past decades using genotyping arrays, representing both a valuable data resource for future biomedical research and a substantial investment in human genetic research. However, novel chip designs and their altered sets of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) pose the question of how well established data resources, such as large samples of healthy controls genotyped on legacy arrays, can be combined with newer samples genotyped on those novel arrays using genotype imputation. We exemplarily investigated this question based on genotype data of 30 European and 30 African unrelated samples from the 1000 Genomes project and on markers present on two legacy SNP arrays, namely Affymetrix's Human SNP 6.0 and Illumina's 550k array, and three newer arrays, namely two Axiom arrays from Affymetrix and an OmniExpress array from Illumina. We cross-compared the imputation accuracy as well as efficacy and assessed genotype concordance among these arrays. Although the accuracy of genotype prediction was uniformly high across all arrays, the imputation efficacy, that is, the proportion of successfully imputed markers, differed considerably between array combinations in both sample sets, with legacy arrays showing a trend towards lower efficacy values compared with newer arrays when serving as imputation basis. We conclude that, given the substantial losses of markers covered by the legacy arrays, the re-genotyping of existing samples sets, in particular those of healthy population controls, would be a worthwhile endeavor to secure their continued use in the future.

Tremendous progress in genetics and genomics led to a wide range of healthcare providers, genetic tests, and more patients who can benefit from these developments. To guarantee and improve the quality of genetic testing, a unified European-based registration for individuals qualified in biomedicine was realized. Therefore a Europe-wide recognition of the profession 'European registered Clinical Laboratory Geneticist (ErCLG)' based on a syllabus of core competences was established which allows for harmonization in professional education. The 'European Board of Medical Genetics division - Clinical Laboratory Geneticist' provides now since 3 years the possibility to register as an ErCLG. Applicants may be from all European countries and since this year also from outside of Europe. Five subtitles reflect the exact specialty of each ErCLG, who can reregister every 5 years. A previously not possible statistics based on ~300 individuals from 19 countries as holders of an ErCLG title provides interesting insights into the professionals working in human genetics. It could be substantiated that there are around twice as many females than males and that a PhD title was achieved by 80% of registered ErCLGs. Also most ErCLGs are still trained as generalists (66%), followed by such ErCLGs with focus on molecular genetics (23%); the remaining are concentrated either on clinical (6%), tumor (4%) or biochemical genetics (1%). In conclusion, besides MDs and genetic counselors/nurses an EU-wide recognition system for Clinical Laboratory Geneticist has been established, which strengthens the status of specialists working in human genetic diagnostics in Europe and worldwide.

In the United Kingdom, genetic counsellors work together with clinical geneticists and clinical scientist colleagues within specialist genetics services, but they also often work in multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) outside of such services. There, they contribute genetic knowledge together with expert understanding of how to communicate genetic information effectively. They can offer education and support to the MDT, while providing management advice for both affected patients and the extended at-risk family members. As genomic technologies are implemented across many disciplines within healthcare, genetic counsellors are playing a key role in enabling non-genetic health professionals learn, understand and integrate genomic data into their practice. They are also involved in curriculum development, workforce planning, research, regulation and policy creation - all with the aim of ensuring a robust evidence base from which to practise, together with clear guidelines on what constitutes competence and good practice. The Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors (AGNC) in The United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland is committed to supporting genetic counsellors, across all sectors of healthcare and research, as they help deliver genomic medicine for the patient, family and world-class health services.European Journal of Human Genetics advance online publication, 22 March 2017; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2017.28.

Disclaimer: These ACMG Standards and Guidelines are intended as an educational resource for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to these standards and guidelines is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These Standards and Guidelines should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of others that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, clinical laboratory geneticists should apply their professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient's record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with these Standards and Guidelines. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted, and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Cerebral creatine deficiency syndromes are neurometabolic conditions characterized by intellectual disability, seizures, speech delay, and behavioral abnormalities. Several laboratory methods are available for preliminary and confirmatory diagnosis of these conditions, including measurement of creatine and related metabolites in biofluids using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, enzyme activity assays in cultured cells, and DNA sequence analysis. These guidelines are intended to standardize these procedures to help optimize the diagnosis of creatine deficiency syndromes. While biochemical methods are emphasized, considerations for confirmatory molecular testing are also discussed, along with variables that influence test results and interpretation.Genet Med 19 2, 256-263.

Purpose: Clinical exome sequencing is nondiagnostic for about 75% of patients evaluated for a possible Mendelian disorder. We examined the ability of systematic reevaluation of exome data to establish additional diagnoses., Methods: The exome and phenotypic data of 40 individuals with previously nondiagnostic clinical exomes were reanalyzed with current software and literature., Results: A definitive diagnosis was identified for 4 of 40 participants (10%). In these cases the causative variant is de novo and in a relevant autosomal-dominant disease gene. The literature to tie the causative genes to the participants' phenotypes was weak, nonexistent, or not readily located at the time of the initial clinical exome reports. At the time of diagnosis by reanalysis, the supporting literature was 1 to 3 years old., Conclusion: Approximately 250 gene-disease and 9,200 variant-disease associations are reported annually. This increase in information necessitates regular reevaluation of nondiagnostic exomes. To be practical, systematic reanalysis requires further automation and more up-to-date variant databases. To maximize the diagnostic yield of exome sequencing, providers should periodically request reanalysis of nondiagnostic exomes. Accordingly, policies regarding reanalysis should be weighed in combination with factors such as cost and turnaround time when selecting a clinical exome laboratory.Genet Med 19 2, 209-214.

The number of publications on research of male infertility is increasing. Technologies used in research of male infertility generate complex results and various types of data that need to be appropriately managed, arranged, and made available to other researchers for further use. In our previous study, we collected over 800 candidate loci for male fertility in seven mammalian species. However, the continuation of the work towards a comprehensive database of candidate genes associated with different types of idiopathic human male infertility is challenging due to fragmented information, obtained from a variety of technologies and various omics approaches. Results are published in different forms and usually need to be excavated from the text, which hinders the gathering of information. Standardized reporting of genetic anomalies as well as causative and risk factors of male infertility therefore presents an important issue. The aim of the study was to collect examples of diverse genomic loci published in association with human male infertility and to propose a standardized format for reporting genetic causes of male infertility. From the currently available data we have selected 75 studies reporting 186 representative genomic loci which have been proposed as genetic risk factors for male infertility. Based on collected and formatted data, we suggested a first step towards unification of reporting the genetics of male infertility in original and review studies. The proposed initiative consists of five relevant data types: 1) genetic locus, 2) race/ethnicity, number of participants (infertile/controls), 3) methodology, 4) phenotype (clinical data, disease ontology, and disease comorbidity), and 5) reference. The proposed form for standardized reporting presents a baseline for further optimization with additional genetic and clinical information. This data standardization initiative will enable faster multi-omics data integration, database development and sharing, establishing more targeted hypotheses, and facilitating biomarker discovery.

The International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) has created a quality label, 'IRDiRC Recognized Resources', formerly known as 'IRDiRC Recommended'. It is a peer-reviewed quality indicator process established based on the IRDiRC Policies and Guidelines to designate resources (ie, standards, guidelines, tools, and platforms) designed to accelerate the pace of discoveries and translation into clinical applications for the rare disease (RD) research community. In its first year of implementation, 13 resources successfully applied for this designation, each focused on key areas essential to IRDiRC objectives and to the field of RD research more broadly. These included data sharing for discovery, knowledge organisation and ontologies, networking patient registries, and therapeutic development. 'IRDiRC Recognized Resources' is a mechanism aimed to provide community-approved contributions to RD research higher visibility, and encourage researchers to adopt recognised standards, guidelines, tools, and platforms that facilitate research advances guided by the principles of interoperability and sharing.

Disclaimer: These recommendations are designed primarily as an educational resource for medical geneticists and other healthcare providers to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to these recommendations is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These recommendations should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed toward obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinician should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific clinical circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinicians are encouraged to document the reasons for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this statement. Clinicians also are advised to take notice of the date this statement was adopted and to consider other medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.To promote standardized reporting of actionable information from clinical genomic sequencing, in 2013, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) published a minimum list of genes to be reported as incidental or secondary findings. The goal was to identify and manage risks for selected highly penetrant genetic disorders through established interventions aimed at preventing or significantly reducing morbidity and mortality. The ACMG subsequently established the Secondary Findings Maintenance Working Group to develop a process for curating and updating the list over time. We describe here the new process for accepting and evaluating nominations for updates to the secondary findings list. We also report outcomes from six nominations received in the initial 15 months after the process was implemented. Applying the new process while upholding the core principles of the original policy statement resulted in the addition of four genes and removal of one gene; one gene did not meet criteria for inclusion. The updated secondary findings minimum list includes 59 medically actionable genes recommended for return in clinical genomic sequencing. We discuss future areas of focus, encourage continued input from the medical community, and call for research on the impact of returning genomic secondary findings.Genet Med 19 2, 249-255.

Purpose Massively parallel sequencing allows simultaneous testing of multiple genes associated with cancer susceptibility. Guidelines are available for variant classification; however, interpretation of these guidelines by laboratories and providers may differ and lead to conflicting reporting and, potentially, to inappropriate medical management. We describe conflicting variant interpretations between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved commercial clinical laboratories, as reported to the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT), an online genetic registry. Methods Clinical data and genetic testing results were gathered from 1,191 individuals tested for inherited cancer susceptibility and self-enrolled in PROMPT between September 2014 and October 2015. Overall, 518 participants (603 genetic variants) had a result interpreted by more than one laboratory, including at least one submitted to ClinVar, and these were used as the final cohort for the current analysis. Results Of the 603 variants, 221 (37%) were classified as a variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 191 (32%) as pathogenic, and 34 (6%) as benign. The interpretation differed among reporting laboratories for 155 (26%). Conflicting interpretations were most frequently reported for CHEK2 and ATM, followed by RAD51C, PALB2, BARD1, NBN, and BRIP1. Among all participants, 56 of 518 (11%) had a variant with conflicting interpretations ranging from pathogenic/likely pathogenic to VUS, a discrepancy that may alter medical management. Conclusions Conflicting interpretation of genetic findings from multiplex panel testing used in clinical practice is frequent and may have implications for medical management decisions.

The increased international sharing of data in research consortia and the introduction of new technologies for sequencing challenge the informed consent (IC) process, adding complexities that require coordination between research centres worldwide. Rare disease consortia present special challenges since available data and samples may be very limited. Thus, it is especially relevant to ensure the best use of available resources but at the same time protect patients' right to integrity. To achieve this aim, there is an ethical duty to plan in advance the best possible consent procedure in order to address possible ethical and legal hurdles that could hamper research in the future. Therefore, it is especially important to identify key core elements (CEs) to be addressed in the IC documents for international collaborative research in two different situations: (1) new research collections (biobanks and registries) for which information documents can be created according to current guidelines and (2) established collections obtained without IC or with a previous consent that does not cover all CEs. We propose here a strategy to deal with consent in these situations. The principles have been applied and are in current practice within the RD-Connect consortia - a global research infrastructure funded by the European Commission Seventh Framework program but forward looking in terms of issues addressed. However, the principles established, the lessons learned and the implications for future research are of direct relevance to all internationally collaborative rare-disease projects.