Explore the vast range of titles available.

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) summarize the genetic predisposition of a complex human trait or disease and may become a valuable tool for advancing precision medicine. However, PRSs that are developed in populations of predominantly European genetic ancestries can increase health disparities due to poor predictive performance in individuals of diverse and complex genetic ancestries. We describe genetic and modifiable risk factors that limit the transferability of PRSs across populations and review the strengths and weaknesses of existing PRS construction methods for diverse ancestries. Developing PRSs that benefit global populations in research and clinical settings provides an opportunity for innovation and is essential for health equity.This Review summarizes the genetic and non-genetic factors that impact the transferability of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) across populations, highlighting the technical challenges of existing PRS construction methods for diverse ancestries and the emerging resources for more widespread use of PRSs.

Assembly and publication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) genome in January 2020 enabled the immediate development of tests to detect the new virus. This began the largest global testing programme in history, in which hundreds of millions of individuals have been tested to date. The unprecedented scale of testing has driven innovation in the strategies, technologies and concepts that govern testing in public health. This Review describes the changing role of testing during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of genomic surveillance to track SARS-CoV-2 transmission around the world, the use of contact tracing to contain disease outbreaks and testing for the presence of the virus circulating in the environment. Despite these efforts, widespread community transmission has become entrenched in many countries and has required the testing of populations to identify and isolate infected individuals, many of whom are asymptomatic. The diagnostic and epidemiological principles that underpin such population-scale testing are also considered, as are the high-throughput and point-of-care technologies that make testing feasible on a massive scale.Population-scale testing is an essential component of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and is likely to become increasingly important in public health. Here, Mercer and Salit describe the roles of testing during the COVID-19 pandemic, including in genomic surveillance, contact tracing and environmental testing.

Across a variety of Mendelian disorders, ∼50–75% of patients do not receive a genetic diagnosis by exome sequencing indicating disease-causing variants in non-coding regions. Although genome sequencing in principle reveals all genetic variants, their sizeable number and poorer annotation make prioritization challenging. Here, we demonstrate the power of transcriptome sequencing to molecularly diagnose 10% (5 of 48) of mitochondriopathy patients and identify candidate genes for the remainder. We find a median of one aberrantly expressed gene, five aberrant splicing events and six mono-allelically expressed rare variants in patient-derived fibroblasts and establish disease-causing roles for each kind. Private exons often arise from cryptic splice sites providing an important clue for variant prioritization. One such event is found in the complex I assembly factor TIMMDC1 establishing a novel disease-associated gene. In conclusion, our study expands the diagnostic tools for detecting non-exonic variants and provides examples of intronic loss-of-function variants with pathological relevance. Genome sequencing alone fails to provide a genetic diagnosis for many Mendelian disorder patients. Here, the authors utilize RNA sequencing to complement genotyping of patients with a rare mitochondrial disease by detecting aberrant RNA expression, splicing and allele-specific expression.

Initial expectations for genome-wide association studies were high, as such studies promised to rapidly transform personalized medicine with individualized disease risk predictions, prevention strategies and treatments. Early findings, however, revealed a more complex genetic architecture than was anticipated for most common diseases — complexity that seemed to limit the immediate utility of these findings. As a result, the practice of utilizing the DNA of an individual to predict disease has been judged to provide little to no useful information. Nevertheless, recent efforts have begun to demonstrate the utility of polygenic risk profiling to identify groups of individuals who could benefit from the knowledge of their probabilistic susceptibility to disease. In this context, we review the evidence supporting the personal and clinical utility of polygenic risk profiling.

Genomic technologies, such as targeted, exome and short-read genome sequencing approaches, have revolutionized the care of patients with rare genetic diseases. However, more than half of patients remain without a diagnosis. Emerging approaches from research-based settings such as long-read genome sequencing and optical genome mapping hold promise for improving the identification of disease-causal genetic variants. In addition, new omic technologies that measure the transcriptome, epigenome, proteome or metabolome are showing great potential for variant interpretation. As genetic testing options rapidly expand, the clinical community needs to be mindful of their individual strengths and limitations, as well as remaining challenges, to select the appropriate diagnostic test, correctly interpret results and drive innovation to address insufficiencies. If used effectively — through truly integrative multi-omics approaches and data sharing — the resulting large quantities of data from these established and emerging technologies will greatly improve the interpretative power of genetic and genomic diagnostics for rare diseases.Genomic technologies have greatly improved the diagnosis of rare genetic diseases. Here, the authors review emerging approaches for the identification of disease-causal genetic variants as well as omic technologies that show great potential for variant interpretation.

Purpose The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics–Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG–AMP) guidelines were a major step toward establishing a common framework for variant classification. In practice, however, several aspects of the guidelines lack specificity, are subject to varied interpretations, or fail to capture relevant aspects of clinical molecular genetics. A simple implementation of the guidelines in their current form is insufficient for consistent and comprehensive variant classification. Methods We undertook an iterative process of refining the ACMG–AMP guidelines. We used the guidelines to classify more than 40,000 clinically observed variants, assessed the outcome, and refined the classification criteria to capture exceptions and edge cases. During this process, the criteria evolved through eight major and minor revisions. Results Our implementation: (i) separated ambiguous ACMG–AMP criteria into a set of discrete but related rules with refined weights; (ii) grouped certain criteria to protect against the overcounting of conceptually related evidence; and (iii) replaced the “clinical criteria” style of the guidelines with additive, semiquantitative criteria. Conclusion Sherloc builds on the strong framework of 33 rules established by the ACMG–AMP guidelines and introduces 108 detailed refinements, which support a more consistent and transparent approach to variant classification.

Reporting and sharing pharmacogenetic test results across clinical laboratories and electronic health records is a crucial step toward the implementation of clinical pharmacogenetics, but allele function and phenotype terms are not standardized. Our goal was to develop terms that can be broadly applied to characterize pharmacogenetic allele function and inferred phenotypes. Terms currently used by genetic testing laboratories and in the literature were identified. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) used the Delphi method to obtain a consensus and agree on uniform terms among pharmacogenetic experts. Experts with diverse involvement in at least one area of pharmacogenetics (clinicians, researchers, genetic testing laboratorians, pharmacogenetics implementers, and clinical informaticians; n = 58) participated. After completion of five surveys, a consensus (>70%) was reached with 90% of experts agreeing to the final sets of pharmacogenetic terms. The proposed standardized pharmacogenetic terms will improve the understanding and interpretation of pharmacogenetic tests and reduce confusion by maintaining consistent nomenclature. These standard terms can also facilitate pharmacogenetic data sharing across diverse electronic health care record systems with clinical decision support.

Even for essential splice-site variants that are almost guaranteed to alter mRNA splicing, no current method can reliably predict whether exon-skipping, cryptic activation or multiple events will result, greatly complicating clinical interpretation of pathogenicity. Strikingly, ranking the four most common unannotated splicing events across 335,663 reference RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) samples (300K-RNA Top-4) predicts the nature of variant-associated mis-splicing with 92% sensitivity. The 300K-RNA Top-4 events correctly identify 96% of exon-skipping events and 86% of cryptic splice sites for 140 clinical cases subject to RNA testing, showing higher sensitivity and positive predictive value than SpliceAI. Notably, RNA re-analyses showed we had missed 300K-RNA Top-4 events for several clinical cases tested before the development of this empirical predictive method. Simply, mis-splicing events that happen around a splice site in RNA-seq data are those most likely to be activated by a splice-site variant. The SpliceVault web portal allows users easy access to 300K-RNA for informed splice-site variant interpretation and classification. Re-analysis of published RNA-sequencing samples finds that unannotated splicing events predict, with high sensitivity, the activation of exon skipping and cryptic splicing by splice-site variants.

Acceleration in discovery of rare genetic variants possibly linked with disease may mean an increased risk of false-positive reports of causality; this Perspective proposes guidelines to distinguish disease-causing sequence variants from the many potentially functional variants in a human genome, and to assess confidence in their pathogenicity, and highlights priority areas for development. Gene variation and human disease The wide-scale availability of high-throughput DNA sequencing technologies means that data on genetic variation in human diseases are accumulating rapidly. In this Perspective, Daniel MacArthur and colleagues sound a note of caution, pointing out that up to a quarter of reported disease-linked mutations have been found to either be common polymorphisms or have lacked sufficient evidence for pathogenicity. The authors discuss the key challenges associated with assessing sequence variants in human disease and propose guidelines for the robust differentiation between disease-causing genetic variants and other variants present in the human genome. They highlight several areas where research and resource development are urgently needed if genomic research findings are to be successfully translated into the clinical diagnostic setting. The discovery of rare genetic variants is accelerating, and clear guidelines for distinguishing disease-causing sequence variants from the many potentially functional variants present in any human genome are urgently needed. Without rigorous standards we risk an acceleration of false-positive reports of causality, which would impede the translation of genomic research findings into the clinical diagnostic setting and hinder biological understanding of disease. Here we discuss the key challenges of assessing sequence variants in human disease, integrating both gene-level and variant-level support for causality. We propose guidelines for summarizing confidence in variant pathogenicity and highlight several areas that require further resource development.

Disclaimer: This statement is designed primarily as an educational resource for clinicians to help them provide quality medical services. Adherence to this statement is completely voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This statement 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. Noninvasive prenatal screening using cell-free DNA (NIPS) has been rapidly integrated into prenatal care since the initial American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) statement in 2013. New evidence strongly suggests that NIPS can replace conventional screening for Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes across the maternal age spectrum, for a continuum of gestational age beginning at 9–10 weeks, and for patients who are not significantly obese. This statement sets forth a new framework for NIPS that is supported by information from validation and clinical utility studies. Pretest counseling for NIPS remains crucial; however, it needs to go beyond discussions of Patau, Edwards, and Down syndromes. The use of NIPS to include sex chromosome aneuploidy screening and screening for selected copy-number variants (CNVs) is becoming commonplace because there are no other screening options to identify these conditions. Providers should have a more thorough understanding of patient preferences and be able to educate about the current drawbacks of NIPS across the prenatal screening spectrum. Laboratories are encouraged to meet the needs of providers and their patients by delivering meaningful screening reports and to engage in education. With health-care-provider guidance, the patient should be able to make an educated decision about the current use of NIPS and the ramifications of a positive, negative, or no-call result. Genet Med 18 10, 1056–1065.