The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources

PURPOSE: Several groups and resources provide information that pertains to the validity of gene-disease relationships used in genomic medicine and research; however, universal standards and terminologies to define the evidence base for the role of a gene in disease, and a single harmonized resource were lacking. To tackle this issue, the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) was formed. METHODS: The GenCC drafted harmonized definitions for differing levels of gene-disease validity based on existing resources, and performed a modified Delphi survey with three rounds to narrow the list of terms. The GenCC also developed a unified database to display curated gene-disease validity assertions from its members. RESULTS: Based on 241 survey responses from the genetics community, a consensus term set was chosen for grading gene-disease validity and database submissions. As of December 2021, the database contains 15,241 gene-disease assertions on 4,569 unique genes from 12 submitters. When comparing submissions to the database from distinct sources, conflicts in assertions of gene-disease validity ranged from 5.3% to 13.4%. CONCLUSION: Terminology standardization, sharing of gene-disease validity classifications, and resolution of curation conflicts will facilitate collaborations across international curation efforts and in turn, improve consistency in genetic testing and variant interpretation.

[1]  M. Caulfield,et al.  Scaling national and international improvement in virtual gene panel curation via a collaborative approach to discordance resolution. , 2021, American journal of human genetics.

[2]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  Data sharing to improve concordance in variant interpretation across laboratories: results from the Canadian Open Genetics Repository , 2021, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[3]  Christopher G Chute,et al.  The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2021 , 2020, Nucleic Acids Res..

[4]  Birgit Funke,et al.  Diagnostic gene sequencing panels: from design to report—a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) , 2019, Genetics in Medicine.

[5]  S. South,et al.  Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) , 2019, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  Nazneen Rahman,et al.  Genomic variant sharing: a position statement , 2019, Wellcome open research.

[7]  Soma Das,et al.  Scaling resolution of variant classification differences in ClinVar between 41 clinical laboratories through an outlier approach , 2018, Human mutation.

[8]  Erin R Riggs,et al.  Copy number variant discrepancy resolution using the ClinGen dosage sensitivity map results in updated clinical interpretations in ClinVar , 2018, Human mutation.

[9]  C. Turnbull,et al.  Consensus for genes to be included on cancer panel tests offered by UK genetics services: guidelines of the UK Cancer Genetics Group , 2018, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[10]  Melissa J. Landrum,et al.  Points to consider for sharing variant-level information from clinical genetic testing with ClinVar , 2018, Cold Spring Harbor molecular case studies.

[11]  Chunlei Liu,et al.  ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence , 2017, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  J. Michael Cherry,et al.  Evaluating the clinical validity of gene-disease associations: an evidence-based framework developed by the Clinical Genome Resource , 2017, bioRxiv.

[13]  Soma Das,et al.  Clinical Laboratories Collaborate to Resolve Differences in Variant Interpretations Submitted to ClinVar , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  F. Alkuraya,et al.  Revisiting the morbid genome of Mendelian disorders , 2016, Genome Biology.

[15]  Michelle Whirl-Carrillo,et al.  Standardizing terms for clinical pharmacogenetic test results: consensus terms from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) , 2016, Genetics in Medicine.

[16]  A. Green,et al.  Protein-truncating variants in moderate-risk breast cancer susceptibility genes: a meta-analysis of high-risk case-control screening studies. , 2015, Cancer genetics.

[17]  Anason S. Halees,et al.  Revisiting disease genes based on whole-exome sequencing in consanguineous populations , 2015, Human Genetics.

[18]  Bale,et al.  Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[19]  A. Gylfason,et al.  Mutations in BRIP1 confer high risk of ovarian cancer , 2011, Nature Genetics.

[20]  Manuel Corpas,et al.  DECIPHER: Database of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans Using Ensembl Resources. , 2009, American journal of human genetics.

[21]  Tom H. Pringle,et al.  The human genome browser at UCSC. , 2002, Genome research.