Pathogenic variants in the paired-related homeobox 1 gene (PRRX1) cause craniosynostosis with incomplete penetrance

Purpose Studies previously implicated PRRX1 in craniofacial development, including demonstration of murine Prrx1 expression in the pre-osteogenic cells of the cranial sutures. We investigated the role of heterozygous missense and loss-of-function variants in PRRX1 associated with craniosynostosis. Methods Trio-based genome, exome or targeted sequencing were used to screen PRRX1 in patients with craniosynostosis; immunofluorescence analyses were used to assess nuclear localization of wild-type and mutant proteins. Results Genome sequencing identified 2 of 9 sporadically affected individuals with syndromic/multisuture craniosynostosis who were heterozygous for rare/undescribed variants in PRRX1. Exome or targeted sequencing of PRRX1 revealed a further 9/1449 patients with craniosynostosis harboring deletions or rare heterozygous variants within the homeodomain. By collaboration, seven additional individuals (four families) were identified with putatively pathogenic PRRX1 variants. Immunofluorescence analyses showed that missense variants within the PRRX1 homeodomain cause abnormal nuclear localization. Of patients with variants considered likely pathogenic, bicoronal or other multi-suture synostosis was present in 11/17 (65% of the cases). Pathogenic variants were inherited from unaffected relatives in many instances, yielding a 12.5% penetrance estimate for craniosynostosis. Conclusion This work supports a key role for PRRX1 in cranial suture development and shows that haploinsufficiency of PRRX1 is a relatively frequent cause of craniosynostosis

Molecular High-Grade B-Cell Lymphoma: Defining a Poor-Risk Group That Requires Different Approaches to Therapy.

PURPOSE: Biologic heterogeneity is a feature of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and the existence of a subgroup with poor prognosis and phenotypic proximity to Burkitt lymphoma is well known. Conventional cytogenetics identifies some patients with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 (double-hit lymphomas) who are increasingly treated with more intensive chemotherapy, but a more biologically coherent and clinically useful definition of this group is required. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We defined a molecular high-grade (MHG) group by applying a gene expression-based classifier to 928 patients with DLBCL from a clinical trial that investigated the addition of bortezomib to standard rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy. The prognostic significance of MHG was compared with existing biomarkers. We performed targeted sequencing of 70 genes in 400 patients and explored molecular pathology using gene expression signature databases. Findings were validated in an independent data set. RESULTS: The MHG group comprised 83 patients (9%), with 75 in the cell-of-origin germinal center B-cell-like group. MYC rearranged and double-hit groups were strongly over-represented in MHG but comprised only one half of the total. Gene expression analysis revealed a proliferative phenotype with a relationship to centroblasts. Progression-free survival rate at 36 months after R-CHOP in the MHG group was 37% (95% CI, 24% to 55%) compared with 72% (95% CI, 68% to 77%) for others, and an analysis of treatment effects suggested a possible positive effect of bortezomib. Double-hit lymphomas lacking the MHG signature showed no evidence of worse outcome than other germinal center B-cell-like cases. CONCLUSION: MHG defines a biologically coherent high-grade B-cell lymphoma group with distinct molecular features and clinical outcomes that effectively doubles the size of the poor-prognosis, double-hit group. Patients with MHG may benefit from intensified chemotherapy or novel targeted therapies.Supported by Bloodwise grant number 15002: Precision Medicine for Aggressive Lymphoma. The Randomized Evaluation of Molecular-Guided Therapy for DLBCL With Bortezomib (REMoDL-B) trial was endorsed by Cancer Research UK, reference number CRUKE/10/024, and Janssen-Cillag provided funding. A.S. is partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. D.R.W. acknowledges UK Medical Research Council grant MR/L01629X/1 for infrastructure support

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Molecular High-Grade B-Cell Lymphoma: Defining a Poor-Risk Group That Requires Different Approaches to Therapy.

PURPOSE: Biologic heterogeneity is a feature of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and the existence of a subgroup with poor prognosis and phenotypic proximity to Burkitt lymphoma is well known. Conventional cytogenetics identifies some patients with rearrangements of MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 (double-hit lymphomas) who are increasingly treated with more intensive chemotherapy, but a more biologically coherent and clinically useful definition of this group is required. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We defined a molecular high-grade (MHG) group by applying a gene expression-based classifier to 928 patients with DLBCL from a clinical trial that investigated the addition of bortezomib to standard rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) therapy. The prognostic significance of MHG was compared with existing biomarkers. We performed targeted sequencing of 70 genes in 400 patients and explored molecular pathology using gene expression signature databases. Findings were validated in an independent data set. RESULTS: The MHG group comprised 83 patients (9%), with 75 in the cell-of-origin germinal center B-cell-like group. MYC rearranged and double-hit groups were strongly over-represented in MHG but comprised only one half of the total. Gene expression analysis revealed a proliferative phenotype with a relationship to centroblasts. Progression-free survival rate at 36 months after R-CHOP in the MHG group was 37% (95% CI, 24% to 55%) compared with 72% (95% CI, 68% to 77%) for others, and an analysis of treatment effects suggested a possible positive effect of bortezomib. Double-hit lymphomas lacking the MHG signature showed no evidence of worse outcome than other germinal center B-cell-like cases. CONCLUSION: MHG defines a biologically coherent high-grade B-cell lymphoma group with distinct molecular features and clinical outcomes that effectively doubles the size of the poor-prognosis, double-hit group. Patients with MHG may benefit from intensified chemotherapy or novel targeted therapies.Supported by Bloodwise grant number 15002: Precision Medicine for Aggressive Lymphoma. The Randomized Evaluation of Molecular-Guided Therapy for DLBCL With Bortezomib (REMoDL-B) trial was endorsed by Cancer Research UK, reference number CRUKE/10/024, and Janssen-Cillag provided funding. A.S. is partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. D.R.W. acknowledges UK Medical Research Council grant MR/L01629X/1 for infrastructure support

Evaluating the performance of a clinical genome sequencing program for diagnosis of rare genetic disease, seen through the lens of craniosynostosis

PurposeGenome sequencing (GS) for diagnosis of rare genetic disease is being introduced into the clinic, but the complexity of the data poses challenges for developing pipelines with high diagnostic sensitivity. We evaluated the performance of the Genomics England 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP) panel-based pipelines, using craniosynostosis as a test disease.MethodsGS data from 114 probands with craniosynostosis and their relatives (314 samples), negative on routine genetic testing, were scrutinized by a specialized research team, and diagnoses compared with those made by 100kGP.ResultsSixteen likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified by 100kGP. Eighteen additional likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants were identified by the research team, indicating that for craniosynostosis, 100kGP panels had a diagnostic sensitivity of only 47%. Measures that could have augmented diagnoses were improved calling of existing panel genes (+18% sensitivity), review of updated panels (+12%), comprehensive analysis of de novo small variants (+29%), and copy-number/structural variants (+9%). Recent NHS England recommendations that partially incorporate these measures should achieve 85% overall sensitivity (+38%).ConclusionGS identified likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in 29.8% of previously undiagnosed patients with craniosynostosis. This demonstrates the value of research analysis and the importance of continually improving algorithms to maximize the potential of clinical GS.</p

Measuring alcohol consumption for genomic meta-analyses of alcohol intake: opportunities and challenges

Whereas moderate drinking may have health benefits, excessive alco-hol consumption causes many important acute and chronic diseases and is the third leading contributor to preventable death in the United States. Twin studies suggest that alcohol-consumption patterns are her-itable (50%); however, multiple genetic variants of modest effect size are likely to contribute to this heritable variation. Genome-wide asso-ciation studies provide a tool for discovering genetic loci that contrib-ute to variations in alcohol consumption. Opportunities exist to identify susceptibility loci with modest effect by meta-analyzing to-gether multiple studies. However, existing studies assessed many dif-ferent aspects of alcohol use, such as typical compared with heavy drinking, and these different assessments can be difficult to reconcile. In addition, many studies lack the ability to distinguish between life-time and recent abstention or to assess the pattern of drinking during the week, and a variety of such concerns surround the appropriateness of developing a common summary measure of alcohol intake. Com-bining such measures of alcohol intake can cause heterogeneity and exposure misclassification, cause a reduction in power, and affect the magnitude of genetic association signals. In this review, we discuss the challenges associated with harmonizing alcohol-consumption data from studies with widely different assessment instruments, with a par-ticular focus on large-scale genetic studies. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:539–47

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

International audienceIn 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field