Beyond the Exome: What’s Next in Diagnostic Testing for Mendelian Conditions

Despite advances in clinical genetic testing, including the introduction of exome sequencing (ES), more than 50% of individuals with a suspected Mendelian condition lack a precise molecular diagnosis. Clinical evaluation is increasingly undertaken by specialists outside of clinical genetics, often occurring in a tiered fashion and typically ending after ES. The current diagnostic rate reflects multiple factors, including technical limitations, incomplete understanding of variant pathogenicity, missing genotype-phenotype associations, complex gene-environment interactions, and reporting differences between clinical labs. Maintaining a clear understanding of the rapidly evolving landscape of diagnostic tests beyond ES, and their limitations, presents a challenge for non-genetics professionals. Newer tests, such as short-read genome or RNA sequencing, can be challenging to order, and emerging technologies, such as optical genome mapping and long-read DNA sequencing, are not available clinically. Furthermore, there is no clear guidance on the next best steps after inconclusive evaluation. Here, we review why a clinical genetic evaluation may be negative, discuss questions to be asked in this setting, and provide a framework for further investigation, including the advantages and disadvantages of new approaches that are nascent in the clinical sphere. We present a guide for the next best steps after inconclusive molecular testing based upon phenotype and prior evaluation, including when to consider referral to research consortia focused on elucidating the underlying cause of rare unsolved genetic disorders

Beyond the exome: What\u27s next in diagnostic testing for Mendelian conditions

Despite advances in clinical genetic testing, including the introduction of exome sequencing (ES), more than 50% of individuals with a suspected Mendelian condition lack a precise molecular diagnosis. Clinical evaluation is increasingly undertaken by specialists outside of clinical genetics, often occurring in a tiered fashion and typically ending after ES. The current diagnostic rate reflects multiple factors, including technical limitations, incomplete understanding of variant pathogenicity, missing genotype-phenotype associations, complex gene-environment interactions, and reporting differences between clinical labs. Maintaining a clear understanding of the rapidly evolving landscape of diagnostic tests beyond ES, and their limitations, presents a challenge for non-genetics professionals. Newer tests, such as short-read genome or RNA sequencing, can be challenging to order, and emerging technologies, such as optical genome mapping and long-read DNA sequencing, are not available clinically. Furthermore, there is no clear guidance on the next best steps after inconclusive evaluation. Here, we review why a clinical genetic evaluation may be negative, discuss questions to be asked in this setting, and provide a framework for further investigation, including the advantages and disadvantages of new approaches that are nascent in the clinical sphere. We present a guide for the next best steps after inconclusive molecular testing based upon phenotype and prior evaluation, including when to consider referral to research consortia focused on elucidating the underlying cause of rare unsolved genetic disorders

What do physicians gain (and lose) with experience? Qualitative results from a cross-national study of diabetes.

Contains fulltext : 87431.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)An empirical puzzle has emerged over the last several decades of research on variation in clinical decision making involving mixed effects of physician experience. There is some evidence that physicians with greater experience may provide poorer quality care than their less experienced counterparts, as captured by various quality assurance measures. Physician experience is traditionally narrowly defined as years in practice or age, and there is a need for investigation into precisely what happens to physicians as they gain experience, including the reasoning and clinical skills acquired over time and the ways in which physicians consciously implement those skills into their work. In this study, we are concerned with 1) how physicians conceptualize and describe the meaning of their clinical experience, and 2) how they use their experience in clinical practice. To address these questions, we analyzed qualitative data drawn from in-depth interviews with physicians from the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany as a part of a larger factorial experiment of medical decision making for diabetes. Our results show that common measures of physician experience do not fully capture the skills physicians acquire over time or how they implement those skills in their clinical work. We found that what physicians actually gain over time is complex social, behavioral and intuitive wisdom as well as the ability to compare the present day patient against similar past patients. These active cognitive reasoning processes are essential components of a forward-looking research agenda in the area of physician experience and decision making. Guideline-based outcome measures, accompanied by underdeveloped age- and years-based definitions of experience, may prematurely conclude that more experienced physicians are providing deficient care while overlooking the ways in which they are providing more and better care than their less experienced counterparts.1 juni 201

Unique Capabilities of Genome Sequencing for Rare Disease Diagnosis

BackgroundCausal variants underlying rare disorders may remain elusive even after expansive gene panels or exome sequencing (ES). Clinicians and researchers may then turn to genome sequencing (GS), though the added value of this technique and its optimal use remain poorly defined. We therefore investigated the advantages of GS within a phenotypically diverse cohort.MethodsGS was performed for 744 individuals with rare disease who were genetically undiagnosed. Analysis included review of single nucleotide, indel, structural, and mitochondrial variants.ResultsWe successfully solved 218/744 (29.3%) cases using GS, with most solves involving established disease genes (157/218, 72.0%). Of all solved cases, 148 (67.9%) had previously had non-diagnostic ES. We systematically evaluated the 218 causal variants for features requiring GS to identify and 61/218 (28.0%) met these criteria, representing 8.2% of the entire cohort. These included small structural variants (13), copy neutral inversions and complex rearrangements (8), tandem repeat expansions (6), deep intronic variants (15), and coding variants that may be more easily found using GS related to uniformity of coverage (19).ConclusionWe describe the diagnostic yield of GS in a large and diverse cohort, illustrating several types of pathogenic variation eluding ES or other techniques. Our results reveal a higher diagnostic yield of GS, supporting the utility of a genome-first approach, with consideration of GS as a secondary or tertiary test when higher-resolution structural variant analysis is needed or there is a strong clinical suspicion for a condition and prior targeted genetic testing has been negative

Heterozygous loss-of-function SMC3 variants are associated with variable and incompletely penetrant growth and developmental features.

Heterozygous missense variants and in-frame indels in SMC3 are a cause of Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS), marked by intellectual disability, growth deficiency, and dysmorphism, via an apparent dominant-negative mechanism. However, the spectrum of manifestations associated with SMC3 loss-of-function variants has not been reported, leading to hypotheses of alternative phenotypes or even developmental lethality. We used matchmaking servers, patient registries, and other resources to identify individuals with heterozygous, predicted loss-of-function (pLoF) variants in SMC3, and analyzed population databases to characterize mutational intolerance in this gene. Here, we show that SMC3 behaves as an archetypal haploinsufficient gene: it is highly constrained against pLoF variants, strongly depleted for missense variants, and pLoF variants are associated with a range of developmental phenotypes. Among 13 individuals with SMC3 pLoF variants, phenotypes were variable but coalesced on low growth parameters, developmental delay/intellectual disability, and dysmorphism reminiscent of atypical CdLS. Comparisons to individuals with SMC3 missense/in-frame indel variants demonstrated a milder presentation in pLoF carriers. Furthermore, several individuals harboring pLoF variants in SMC3 were nonpenetrant for growth, developmental, and/or dysmorphic features, some instead having intriguing symptomatologies with rational biological links to SMC3 including bone marrow failure, acute myeloid leukemia, and Coats retinal vasculopathy. Analyses of transcriptomic and epigenetic data suggest that SMC3 pLoF variants reduce SMC3 expression but do not result in a blood DNA methylation signature clustering with that of CdLS, and that the global transcriptional signature of SMC3 loss is model-dependent. Our finding of substantial population-scale LoF intolerance in concert with variable penetrance in subjects with SMC3 pLoF variants expands the scope of cohesinopathies, informs on their allelic architecture, and suggests the existence of additional clearly LoF-constrained genes whose disease links will be confirmed only by multi-layered genomic data paired with careful phenotyping. </p