Identification of limb-specific Lmx1b auto-regulatory modules with Nail-patella syndrome pathogenicity

© The Author(s) 2021.LMX1B haploinsufficiency causes Nail-patella syndrome (NPS; MIM 161200), characterized by nail dysplasia, absent/hypoplastic patellae, chronic kidney disease, and glaucoma. Accordingly in mice, Lmx1b has been shown to play crucial roles in the development of the limb, kidney and eye. Although one functional allele of Lmx1b appears adequate for development, Lmx1b null mice display ventral-ventral distal limbs with abnormal kidney, eye and cerebellar development, more disruptive, but fully concordant with NPS. In Lmx1b functional knockouts (KOs), Lmx1b transcription in the limb is decreased nearly 6-fold, indicating autoregulation. Herein, we report on two conserved Lmx1b-associated cis-regulatory modules (LARM1 and LARM2) that are bound by Lmx1b, amplify Lmx1b expression with unique spatial modularity in the limb, and are necessary for Lmx1b-mediated limb dorsalization. These enhancers, being conserved across vertebrates (including coelacanth, but not other fish species), and required for normal locomotion, provide a unique opportunity to study the role of dorsalization in the fin to limb transition. We also report on two NPS patient families with normal LMX1B coding sequence, but with loss-of-function variations in the LARM1/2 region, stressing the role of regulatory modules in disease pathogenesis.This work was supported in part by grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (M.A.R) (BFU2017-88265-P); the National Organization for Rare Disorders (K.C.O.), and the Loma Linda University Pathology Research Endowment Fund (K.C.O.)

European recommendations integrating genetic testing into multidisciplinary management of sudden cardiac death.

Sudden cardiac death (SCD) accounts for 10-20% of total mortality, i.e., one in five individuals will eventually die suddenly. Given the substantial genetic component of SCD in younger cases, postmortem genetic testing may be particularly useful in elucidating etiological factors in the cause of death in this subset. The identification of genes responsible for inherited cardiac diseases have led to the organization of cardiogenetic consultations in many countries worldwide. Expert recommendations are available, emphasizing the importance of genetic testing and appropriate information provision of affected individuals, as well as their relatives. However, the context of postmortem genetic testing raises some particular ethical, legal, and practical (including economic or financial) challenges. The Public and Professional Policy Committee of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG), together with international experts, developed recommendations on management of SCD after a workshop sponsored by the Brocher Foundation and ESHG in November 2016. These recommendations have been endorsed by the ESHG Board, the European Council of Legal Medicine, the European Society of Cardiology working group on myocardial and pericardial diseases, the ERN GUARD-HEART, and the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. They emphasize the importance of increasing the proportion of both medical and medicolegal autopsies and educating the professionals. Multidisciplinary collaboration is of utmost importance. Public funding should be allocated to reach these goals and allow public health evaluation

Points to consider for prioritizing clinical genetic testing services: a European consensus process oriented at accountability for reasonableness.

Given the cost constraints of the European health-care systems, criteria are needed to decide which genetic services to fund from the public budgets, if not all can be covered. To ensure that high-priority services are available equitably within and across the European countries, a shared set of prioritization criteria would be desirable. A decision process following the accountability for reasonableness framework was undertaken, including a multidisciplinary EuroGentest/PPPC-ESHG workshop to develop shared prioritization criteria. Resources are currently too limited to fund all the beneficial genetic testing services available in the next decade. Ethically and economically reflected prioritization criteria are needed. Prioritization should be based on considerations of medical benefit, health need and costs. Medical benefit includes evidence of benefit in terms of clinical benefit, benefit of information for important life decisions, benefit for other people apart from the person tested and the patient-specific likelihood of being affected by the condition tested for. It may be subject to a finite time window. Health need includes the severity of the condition tested for and its progression at the time of testing. Further discussion and better evidence is needed before clearly defined recommendations can be made or a prioritization algorithm proposed. To our knowledge, this is the first time a clinical society has initiated a decision process about health-care prioritization on a European level, following the principles of accountability for reasonableness. We provide points to consider to stimulate this debate across the EU and to serve as a reference for improving patient management

Opportunistic genomic screening. Recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics

If genome sequencing is performed in health care, in theory the opportunity arises to take a further look at the data: opportunistic genomic screening (OGS). The European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG) in 2013 recommended that genome analysis should be restricted to the original health problem at least for the time being. Other organizations have argued that ‘actionable’ genetic variants should or could be reported (including American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, French Society of Predictive and Personalized Medicine, Genomics England). They argue that the opportunity should be used to routinely and systematically look for secondary findings—so-called opportunistic screening. From a normative perspective, the distinguishing characteristic of screening is not so much its context (whether public health or health care), but the lack of an indication for having this specific test or investigation in those to whom screening is offered. Screening entails a more precarious benefits-to-risks balance. The ESHG continues to recommend a cautious approach to opportunistic screening. Proportionality and autonomy must be guaranteed, and in collectively funded health-care systems the potential benefits must be balanced against health care expenditures. With regard to genome sequencing in pediatrics, ESHG argues that it is premature to look for later-onset conditions in children. Counseling should be offered and informed consent is and should be a central ethical norm. Depending on developing evidence on penetrance, actionability, and available resources, OGS pilots may be justified to generate data for a future, informed, comparative analysis of OGS and its main alternatives, such as cascade testing

DYSTROPHIES MYOTONIQUES SANS EXPANSION CTG (A PROPOS D'UN CAS)

BESANCON-BU Médecine pharmacie (250562102) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSudocFranceF

Les tests génétiques peuvent-ils être utiles pour la prévention cardiovasculaire? [Are genetic tests useful for cardiovascular prevention?].

Recent progresses in genetics have opened new avenues to further our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cardiovascular disease, raising, new expectations in the field of personalized medicine. Genetic tests may have a high predictive value for rare monogenic diseases. The situation is very different for common polygenic diseases, such as myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes or stroke. The results from recent genome-wide association studies have provided useful information for research, but have not yet been proven to be clinically useful. It is therefore currently not recommended to conducted genetic testing to guide cardiovascular prevention neither in clinical nor in public health settings

Les tests génétiques peuvent-ils être utiles pour la prévention cardiovasculaire ?

Recent progresses in genetics have opened new avenues to further our understanding of the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying cardiovascular disease, raising, new expectations in the field of personalized medicine. Genetic tests may have a high predictive value for rare monogenic diseases. The situation is very different for common polygenic diseases, such as myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes or stroke. The results from recent genome-wide association studies have provided useful information for research, but have not yet been proven to be clinically useful. It is therefore currently not recommended to conducted genetic testing to guide cardiovascular prevention neither in clinical nor in public health settings