Human germline gene editing: Recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

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

Responsible innovation in human germline gene editing: Background document to the recommendations of ESHG and ESHRE

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

Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Alleles and the Risk of Breast Cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: Implications for Risk Prediction

The known breast cancer (BC) susceptibility polymorphisms in FGFR2, TNRC9/TOX3, MAP3K1,LSP1 and 2q35 confer increased risks of BC for BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. We evaluated the associations of three additional SNPs, rs4973768 in SLC4A7/NEK10, rs6504950 in STXBP4/COX11 and rs10941679 at 5p12 and reanalyzed the previous associations using additional carriers in a sample of 12,525 BRCA1 and 7,409 BRCA2 carriers. Additionally, we investigated potential interactions between SNPs and assessed the implications for risk prediction. The minor alleles of rs4973768 and rs10941679 were associated with increased BC risk for BRCA2 carriers (per-allele Hazard Ratio (HR)=1.10, 95%CI:1.03-1.18, p=0.006 and HR=1.09, 95%CI:1.01-1.19, p=0.03, respectively). Neither SNP was associated with BC risk for BRCA1 carriers and rs6504950 was not associated with BC for either BRCA1 or BRCA2 carriers. Of the nine polymorphisms investigated, seven were associated with BC for BRCA2 carriers (FGFR2, TOX3, MAP3K1, LSP1, 2q35, SLC4A7, 5p12, p-values:7×10−11-0.03), but only TOX3 and 2q35 were associated with the risk for BRCA1 carriers (p=0.0049, 0.03 respectively). All risk associated polymorphisms appear to interact multiplicatively on BC risk for mutation carriers. Based on the joint genotype distribution of the seven risk associated SNPs in BRCA2 mutation carriers, the 5% of BRCA2 carriers at highest risk (i.e. between 95th and 100th percentiles) were predicted to have a probability between 80% and 96% of developing BC by age 80, compared with 42-50% for the 5% of carriers at lowest risk. Our findings indicated that these risk differences may be sufficient to influence the clinical management of mutation carriers