Various forms of documentation and “consent” forms are used to record evidence of permission to undertake paediatric genome or exome sequencing. But how fully do parents and caregivers understand the implications of such testing? Gereis et al. report a systematic review examining these issues [1]. They find parents/caregivers may over estimate the benefits of such testing, and have limited understanding of the potential for variants of uncertain significance, the negative impacts of secondary findings and privacy/data sharing concerns. The evidence base also raised concerns about the depth and detail of understanding. Clearly this is an important area of research—how best to design information resources so that people can opt for genome/exome sequencing in an informed manner?
In this issue we print papers providing further evidence of the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing. Sironi et al. use combinations of array comparative genomic hybridisation and next generation sequencing to identify a novel RAI1 intra-genic deletion in a case of Smith-Magenis syndrome [2]. Neurofibromatosis type 1 is clinically diagnosed and in 95% or more a loss-of-function variant can be found in neurofibromin. What accounts for the mutation negative cases? Alesi et al. report a novel mechanism for neurofibromin loss-of-function: gene inversions [3]. Perplexing phenotypes, with multiple organ involvement, are the signature of rare diseases. Gargello et al. report that CTCF variants explain the link between intellectual disability and Wilm’s tumour [4]. Koprulu et al. report a novel cutaneous disorder associated with Keratin-17 mutations [5] and Robles-Bolivar et al. describe heterozygous CENPP variants in autosomal deafness [6]. Of course, once causal genes are identified the phenotype must be fully defined in order to inform clinical practice. Guo et al. report a novel cohort of people with KBG syndrome to help define the phenotype [7].
Appropriate utilisation of next generation sequencing depends to an extent upon clinician attitudes. Haider reports a qualitative study of Canadian genetic health professionals attitudes to non-invasive prenatal testing [8]. They favour use of these techniques for monogenic disease but not indications such as paternity testing. Rapid exome sequencing for critically ill neonates is common, but genetics professionals report barriers to offering appropriate follow up. Mainstreaming Clinical Genetics - that is allowing non-genetics clinicians to request genomic tests and manage results is the current strategy to increase uptake of testing. Quinn and Mazur report the experiences of genetic counsellors working in mainstream clinical genetics in the United Kingdom and suggestions to improve working practices [9]. In many countries, there are protections around people who have had genetic testing having to disclose the results to finance companies. Dowling et al. describe the Australian experience of such a moratorium [10].
Genetic testing to aid in clinical diagnosis is relatively non-controversial. Using genetic testing more widely in the general population for screening is less accepted. Van Steijvoort et al. report mixed views on reproductive carrier screening in the general population [11]. Baribeau et al. report that genetic testing for physical health concerns can identify a condition with an unexpected developmental delay [12]. Careful patient counselling is required in all settings before genetic testing.
References
Gereis J, Hetherington K, Ha L, Robertson EG, Ziegler DS, Barlow-Stewart K, et al. Parents’ understanding of genome and exome sequencing for pediatric health conditions: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01170-2.
Sironi A, Bestetti I, Masciadri M, Tumiatti F, Crippa M, Pantaleoni C, et al. A unique Smith-Magenis patient with a de novo intragenic deletion on the maternally inherited overexpressed RAI1 allele. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01143-5.
Alesi V, Lepri FR, Dentici ML, Genovese S, Sallicandro E, Bejo K, et al. Intragenic inversions in NF1 gene as pathogenic mechanism in neurofibromatosis type 1. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01153-3.
Gargallo P, Oltra S, Tasso M, Balaguer J, Yáñez Y, Dolz S, et al. Germline variant in Ctcf links mental retardation to Wilms tumor predisposition. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01105-x.
Koprulu M, Naeem M, Nalbant G, Shabbir RMK, Mahmood T, Huma Z, et al. KERATIN 17-related recessive atypical pachyonychia congenita with variable hair and tooth anomalies. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01128-4.
Robles-Bolivar P, Bächinger D, Parra-Perez AM, Román-Naranjo P, Escalera-Balsera A, Gallego-Martinez A et al. A novel nonsense variant in the CENPP gene segregates in a Swiss family with autosomal dominant low-frequency sensorineural hearing loss. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01184-w.
Guo L, Park J, Yi E, Marchi E, Hsieh TC, Kibalnyk Y, et al. KBG syndrome: videoconferencing and use of artificial intelligence driven facial phenotyping in 25 new patients. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01171-1.
Haidar H, Birko S, Laberge AM, Le Clerc-Blain J, Ravitsky V. Views of Canadian healthcare professionals on the future uses of non-invasive prenatal testing: a mixed method study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01151-5.
Quinn E, Mazur K. The experiences of UK-based genetic counsellors working in mainstream settings. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01158-y.
Dowling G, Tiller J, McInerney-Leo A, Belcher A, Haining C, Barlow-Stewart K, et al. Health professionals’ views and experiences of the Australian moratorium on genetic testing and life insurance: a qualitative study. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01150-6.
Van Steijvoort E, Devolder H, Geysen I, Van Epperzeel S, Peeters H, Peeraer K, et al. Knowledge, attitudes and preferences regarding reproductive genetic carrier screening among reproductive-aged men and women in Flanders (Belgium). Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01082-1.
Baribeau DA, Hoang N, Selvanayagam T, Stavropoulos DJ, Costain G, Scherer SW, et al. Developmental implications of genetic testing for physical indications. Eur J Hum Genet. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01181-z.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AM conceived and wrote this article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McNeill, A. Genome sequencing—do you know what you are getting into?. Eur J Hum Genet 30, 1201–1202 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01206-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-022-01206-7