Development of a comprehensive genome-wide cardiovascular disease genetic risk assessment test
Amendola, L. M.; Coffey, A. J.; Lowry, J.; Avecilla, J.; Malhotra, A.; Chawla, A.; Thacker, S.; Taylor, J. P.; Rajkumar, R.; Brown, C. M.; Golden-Grant, K.; Hejja, R.; Lee, J. A.; Medrano, P.; Milewski, B.; Mullen, F.; Walker, A.; Huertez-Vasquez, A.; Longoni, M.; Perry, D. L.; Hostin, D.; Ajay, S. S.; Kesari, A.; Strom, S. P.; Margulies, E.; Belmont, J.; Lanfear, D. E.; Taft, R. J.
Show abstract
BackgroundDespite monogenic and polygenic contributions to cardiovascular disease (CVD), genetic testing is not widely adopted, and current tests are limited by the breadth of surveyed conditions and interpretation burden. MethodsWe developed a comprehensive clinical genome CVD test with semi-automated interpretation. Monogenic conditions and risk alleles were selected based on the strength of disease association and evidence for increased disease risk, respectively. Non-CVD secondary findings genes, pharmacogenomic (PGx) variants and CVD polygenic risk scores (PRS) were assessed for inclusion. Test performance was modeled using 2,594 genomes from the 1000 Genomes Project, and further investigated in 20 previously tested individuals. ResultsThe CVD genome test is composed of a panel of 215 CVD gene-disease pairs, 35 non-CVD secondary findings genes, 4 risk alleles or genotypes, 10 PGx genes and a PRS for coronary artery disease. Modeling of test performance using samples from the 1000 Genomes Project revealed [~]6% of individuals with a monogenic finding in a CVD-associated gene, 6% with a risk allele finding, [~]1% with a non-CVD secondary finding, and 93% with CVD-associated PGx variants. Assessment of blinded clinical samples showed complete concordance with prior testing. An average of 4 variants were reviewed per case, with interpretation and reporting time ranging from 9-96 min. ConclusionsA genome sequencing based CVD genetic risk assessment can provide comprehensive genetic disease and genetic risk information to patients with CVD. The semi-automated and limited interpretation burden suggest that this testing approach could be scaled to support population-level initiatives.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Population genomic screening leads to improved lipid management in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia 94%
- Rare Genetic Variants Associated with Sudden Cardiac Arrest in the Young: A Prospective, Population-Based Study 94%
- Clinical genetic risk variants inform a functional protein interaction network for tetralogy of Fallot 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Familial Hypercholesterolemia Variant Curation Expert Panel consensus guidelines for LDLR variant classification 96%
- Variant Curation Expert Panel Recommendations for RYR1 Pathogenicity Assertions in Malignant Hyperthermia Susceptibility 93%
- Towards robust clinical genome interpretation: developing a consistent terminology to characterize disease-gene relationships - allelic requirement, inheritance modes and disease mechanisms 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Beyond gene-disease validity: capturing structured data on inheritance, allelic-requirement, disease-relevant variant classes, and disease mechanism for inherited cardiac conditions 96%
- A validated heart-specific model for splice-disrupting variants in childhood heart disease 94%
- Investigation of an LPA KIV-2 nonsense mutation in 11,000 individuals: the importance of linkage disequilibrium structure in LPA genetics. 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Returning Actionable Genomic Results in a Research Biobank: Analytic Validity, Clinical Implementation and Resource Utilization 94%
- Genomic rare variant mechanisms for congenital cardiac laterality defect: A digenic model approach 93%
- Identification of actionable genetic variants in 4,198 Scottish volunteers from the Viking Genes research cohort and implementation of return of results 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.