RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 An Evidence-based Assessment of Genes in Dilated Cardiomyopathy
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.10.20247197
DO 10.1101/2020.12.10.20247197
A1 Elizabeth Jordan
A1 Laiken Peterson
A1 Tomohiko Ai
A1 Babken Asatryan
A1 Lucas Bronicki
A1 Emily Brown
A1 Rudy Celeghin
A1 Matthew Edwards
A1 Judy Fan
A1 Jodie Ingles
A1 Cynthia A. James
A1 Olga Jarinova
A1 Renee Johnson
A1 Daniel P. Judge
A1 Najim Lahrouchi
A1 Ronald Lekanne Deprez
A1 R. Thomas Lumbers
A1 Francesco Mazzarotto
A1 Argelia Medeiros Domingo
A1 Rebecca Miller
A1 Ana Morales
A1 Brittney Murray
A1 Stacey Peters
A1 Kalliopi Pilichou
A1 Alexandros Protonotarios
A1 Christopher Semsarian
A1 Palak Shah
A1 Petros Syrris
A1 Courtney Thaxton
A1 J. Peter van Tintelen
A1 Roddy Walsh
A1 Jessica Wang
A1 James Ware
A1 Ray E. Hershberger
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/15/2020.12.10.20247197.abstract
AB Background The cardiomyopathies are classically categorized as hypertrophic (HCM), dilated (DCM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular (ARVC), and each have a signature genetic theme. HCM and ARVC are largely understood as genetic diseases of sarcomere or desmosome proteins, respectively. In contrast, >250 genes spanning more than 10 gene ontologies have been implicated in DCM, representing a complex and diverse genetic architecture. To clarify this, a systematic curation of evidence to establish the relationship of genes with DCM was conducted.Methods An international Panel with clinical and scientific expertise in DCM genetics was assembled to evaluate evidence supporting monogenic relationships of genes with idiopathic DCM. The Panel utilized the ClinGen semi-quantitative gene-disease clinical validity classification framework.Results Fifty-one genes with human genetic evidence were curated. Twelve genes (23%) from eight gene ontologies were classified as having definitive (BAG3, DES, FLNC, LMNA, MYH7, PLN, RBM20, SCN5A, TNNC1, TNNT2, TTN) or strong (DSP) evidence. Seven genes (14%) (ACTC1, ACTN2, JPH2, NEXN, TNNI3, TPM1, VCL) including two additional ontologies were classified as moderate evidence; these genes are likely to emerge as strong or definitive with additional evidence. Of the 19 genes classified as definitive, strong or moderate, six were similarly classified for HCM and three for ARVC. Of the remaining 32 genes (63%), 25 (49%) had limited evidence, 4 (8%) were disputed, 2 (4%) had no disease relationship, and 1 (2%) was supported by animal model data only. Of 16 commercially available genetic testing panels evaluated, most definitive genes were included, but panels also included numerous genes with minimal human evidence.Conclusions In a systematic curation of published evidence for genes considered relevant for monogenic DCM, 12 were classified as definitive or strong and seven as moderate evidence spanning 10 gene ontologies. Notably, these 19 genes only explain a minority of DCM cases, leaving the remainder of DCM genetic architecture incompletely addressed. While clinical genetic testing panels include most high evidence genes, genes lacking robust evidence are also commonly included. Until the genetic architecture of DCM is more fully defined, care should be taken in the interpretation of variable evidence DCM genes in clinical practice.Competing Interest StatementThe following authors have made contributions to the literature and/or actively participate in research related to gene curation, gene discovery, and genetic testing: T.L., F.M., D.J., J.W., RW., R.H., E.J., T.A., L.P., P.S., J.I., C.S., C.J., A.M. The following authors are an employee, trainee, or consultant for a commercial laboratory offering genetic testing, genetic counseling, and/or therapeutics related to dilated cardiomyopathy: E.B., D.J., A.M., B.M., J.F. J.W. and J.I. are consultants for Myocardia, Inc. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.Funding StatementThis publication was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number U41HG009650; also by a parent award from the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the NIH under Award Number R01HL128857 (Dr. Hershberger), which included a supplement from the NHGRI. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. CS is the recipient of a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (#1154992). R.T.L. is supported by a UK Research and Innovation Rutherford Fellowship hosted by Health Data Research UK (MR/S003754/1) and by the BigData@Heart Consortium funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative-2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 116074. PS is supported by a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) career development award (1K23HL143179-01A1). PvT received funding from Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative, an initiative supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation (CVON projects 2015-12 eDETECT, 2018-30 PREDICT2). JSW is supported by the Wellcome Trust [107469/Z/15/Z], Medical Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Royal Brompton Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, and the NIHR Imperial College Biomedical Research Centre. JI is the recipient of an NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (#1162929).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No IRB approval was needed as human subject research was not conducted by this study.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are provided in the manuscript, or the supplementary data, or the data that support the findings of this study are published on the ClinGen website (https://clinicalgenome.org/). https://clinicalgenome.org