Due to the high genetic heterogeneity of hearing loss, current clinical testing includes sequencing large numbers of genes, which often yields a significant number of novel variants. Therefore, the standardization of variant interpretation is crucial to provide consistent and accurate diagnoses. The Hearing Loss Variant Curation Expert Panel was created within the Clinical Genome Resource to provide expert guidance for standardized genomic interpretation in the context of hearing loss. As one of its major tasks, our Expert Panel has adapted the ACMG/AMP guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants in hearing loss genes. Here, we provide a comprehensive illustration of the newly specified ACMG/AMP hearing loss rules. Three rules remained unchanged, four rules were removed, and the remaining twenty-one rules were specified. These rules were further validated and refined using a pilot set of 51 variants assessed by curators and expert opinion. Of the 51 variants evaluated in the pilot, 37% (19/51) changed category based upon application of the expert panel specified rules and/or aggregation of evidence across laboratories. These hearing loss-specific ACMG/AMP rules will help standardize variant interpretation, ultimately leading to better care for individuals with hearing loss.

ClinVar Miner is a Web-based suite that utilizes the data held in the National Center for Biotechnology Information's ClinVar archive. The goal is to render the data more accessible to processes pertaining to conflict resolution of variant interpretation as well as tracking details of data submission and data management for detailed variant curation. Here, we establish the use of these tools to address three separate use cases and to perform analyses across submissions. We demonstrate that the ClinVar Miner tools are an effective means to browse and consolidate data for variant submitters, curation groups, and general oversight. These tools are also relevant to the variant interpretation community in general.

Proper interpretation of genomic variants is critical to successful medical decision making based on genetic testing results. A fundamental prerequisite to accurate variant interpretation is the clear understanding of the clinical validity of gene-disease relationships. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a semi-quantitative framework to assign clinical validity to gene-disease relationships. Methods: The ClinGen Hearing Loss Gene Curation Expert Panel (HL GCEP) uses this framework to perform evidence-based curations of genes present on testing panels from 17 clinical laboratories in the Genetic Testing Registry. The HL GCEP curated and reviewed 142 genes and 164 gene-disease pairs, including 105 nonsyndromic and 59 syndromic forms of hearing loss. Results: The final outcome included 82 Definitive (50%), 12 Strong (7%), 25 Moderate (15%), 32 Limited (20%), 10 Disputed (6%), and 3 Refuted (2%) classifications. The summary of each curation is date stamped with the HL GCEP approval, is live, and will be kept up-to-date on the ClinGen website (https://search.clinicalgenome.org/kb/gene-validity). Conclusion: This gene curation approach serves to optimize the clinical sensitivity of genetic testing while reducing the rate of uncertain or ambiguous test results caused by the interrogation of genes with insufficient evidence of a disease link.

(200 WORD LIMIT)Due to the high genetic heterogeneity of hearing loss, current clinical testing includes sequencing large numbers of genes, which often yields a significant number of novel variants.Therefore, the standardization of variant interpretation is crucial to provide consistent and accurate diagnoses. The Hearing Loss Variant Curation Expert Panel was created within the Clinical Genome Resource to provide expert guidance for standardized genomic interpretation in the context of hearing loss. As one of its major tasks, our Expert Panel has adapted the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants in hearing loss genes. Here, we provide a comprehensive illustration of the newly specified ACMG/AMP . CC-BY-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.The copyright holder for this preprint (which . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/313734 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online May. 8, 2018; hearing loss rules. Three rules remained unchanged, four rules were removed, and the remaining twenty-one rules were specified. Of the specified rules, four had general recommendations, seven were gene/disease considerations, seven had strength-level specifications, and three rules had both gene/disease and strength-level specifications. These rules were further validated and refined using a pilot set of 51 variants assessed by curators.These hearing loss-specific ACMG/AMP rules will help standardize variant interpretation, ultimately leading to better care for individuals with hearing loss.

The RASopathies are a complex group of conditions regarding phenotype and genetic etiology. The ClinGen RASopathy Expert Panel (RAS EP) assessed published and other publicly available evidence supporting the association of 19 genes with RASopathy conditions. Using the semiquantitative literature curation method developed by the ClinGen Gene Curation Working Group, evidence for each gene was curated and scored for Noonan syndrome (NS), Costello syndrome, cardiofaciocutaneous syndrome, NS with multiple lentigines, and Noonan-like syndrome with loose anagen hair. The curated evidence supporting each gene–disease relationship was then discussed and approved by the ClinGen RASopathy Expert Panel. Each association’s strength was classified as definitive, strong, moderate, limited, disputed, or no evidence. Eleven genes were classified as definitively associated with at least one RASopathy condition. Two genes classified as strong for association with at least one RASopathy condition while one gene was moderate and three were limited. The RAS EP also disputed the association of two genes for all RASopathy conditions. Overall, our results provide a greater understanding of the different gene–disease relationships within the RASopathies and can help in guiding and directing clinicians, patients, and researchers who are identifying variants in individuals with a suspected RASopathy.