X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH) is the prototypic disorder of renal phosphate wasting, and the most common form of heritable rickets. Physicians, patients, and XLH support groups have all expressed concerns about the dearth of information about this disease and the lack of treatment guidelines which frequently lead to missed diagnoses or mismanagement. This perspective addresses the recommendation by conferees for the dissemination of concise and accessible treatment guidelines for clinicians arising from the “Advances in Rare Bone Diseases Scientific Conference,” held at the National Institutes of Health in October 2008. We briefly review the clinical and pathophysiologic features of the disorder, and offer this guide in response to the conference recommendation, base on our collective accumulated experience in the management of this complex disorder.

SummaryAlthough autism is a highly heritable neurodevelopmental disorder, attempts to identify specific susceptibility genes have thus far met with limited success 1. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) using half a million or more markers, particularly those with very large sample sizes achieved through meta-analysis, have shown great success in mapping genes for other complex genetic traits (http://www.genome.gov/26525384). Consequently, we initiated a linkage and association mapping study using half a million genome-wide SNPs in a common set of 1,031 multiplex autism families (1,553 affected offspring). We identified regions of suggestive and significant linkage on chromosomes 6q27 and 20p13, respectively. Initial analysis did not yield genome-wide significant associations; however, genotyping of top hits in additional families revealed a SNP on chromosome 5p15 (between SEMA5A and TAS2R1) that was significantly associated with autism (P = 2 × 10−7). We also demonstrated that expression of SEMA5A is reduced in brains from autistic patients, further implicating SEMA5A as an autism susceptibility gene. The linkage regions reported here provide targets for rare variation screening while the discovery of a single novel association demonstrates the action of common variants.

As more research studies incorporate next-generation sequencing (including whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing), investigators and institutional review boards face difficult questions regarding which genomic results to return to research participants and how. An American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics 2013 policy paper suggesting that pathogenic mutations in 56 specified genes should be returned in the clinical setting has raised the question of whether comparable recommendations should be considered in research settings. The Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium and the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network are multisite research programs that aim to develop practical strategies for addressing questions concerning the return of results in genomic research. CSER and eMERGE committees have identified areas of consensus regarding the return of genomic results to research participants. In most circumstances, if results meet an actionability threshold for return and the research participant has consented to return, genomic results, along with referral for appropriate clinical follow-up, should be offered to participants. However, participants have a right to decline the receipt of genomic results, even when doing so might be viewed as a threat to the participants' health. Research investigators should be prepared to return research results and incidental findings discovered in the course of their research and meeting an actionability threshold, but they have no ethical obligation to actively search for such results. These positions are consistent with the recognition that clinical research is distinct from medical care in both its aims and its guiding moral principles.

In 1995, the American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) and American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) jointly published a statement on genetic testing in children and adolescents. In the past 20 years, much has changed in the field of genetics, including the development of powerful new technologies, new data from genetic research on children and adolescents, and substantial clinical experience. This statement represents current opinion by the ASHG on the ethical, legal, and social issues concerning genetic testing in children. These recommendations are relevant to families, clinicians, and investigators. After a brief review of the 1995 statement and major changes in genetic technologies in recent years, this statement offers points to consider on a broad range of test technologies and their applications in clinical medicine and research. Recommendations are also made for record and communication issues in this domain and for professional education.

There are few better examples of the need for data sharing than in the rare disease community, where patients, physicians, and researchers must search for “the needle in a haystack” to uncover rare, novel causes of disease within the genome. Impeding the pace of discovery has been the existence of many small siloed datasets within individual research or clinical laboratory databases and/or disease-specific organizations, hoping for serendipitous occasions when two distant investigators happen to learn they have a rare phenotype in common and can “match” these cases to build evidence for causality. However, serendipity has never proven to be a reliable or scalable approach in science. As such, the Matchmaker Exchange (MME) was launched to provide a robust and systematic approach to rare disease gene discovery through the creation of a federated network connecting databases of genotypes and rare phenotypes using a common application programming interface (API). The core building blocks of the MME have been defined and assembled. Three MME services have now been connected through the API and are available for community use. Additional databases that support internal matching are anticipated to join the MME network as it continues to grow.

BACKGROUND Multiple lines of evidence indicate a strong genetic contribution to autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Current guidelines for clinical genetic testing recommend a G-banded karyotype to detect chromosomal abnormalities and fragile X DNA testing, but guidelines for chromosomal microarray analysis have not been established. PATIENTS AND METHODS A cohort of 933 patients received clinical genetic testing for a diagnosis of ASD between January 2006 and December 2008. Clinical genetic testing included G-banded karyotype, fragile X testing, and chromosomal microarray (CMA) to test for submicroscopic genomic deletions and duplications. Diagnostic yield of clinically significant genetic changes was compared. RESULTS Karyotype yielded abnormal results in 19 of 852 patients (2.23% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.73%–2.73%]), fragile X testing was abnormal in 4 of 861 (0.46% [95% CI: 0.36%–0.56%]), and CMA identified deletions or duplications in 154 of 848 patients (18.2% [95% CI: 14.76%–21.64%]). CMA results for 59 of 848 patients (7.0% [95% CI: 5.5%–8.5%]) were considered abnormal, which includes variants associated with known genomic disorders or variants of possible significance. CMA results were normal in 10 of 852 patients (1.2%) with abnormal karyotype due to balanced rearrangements or unidentified marker chromosome. CMA with whole-genome coverage and CMA with targeted genomic regions detected clinically relevant copy-number changesin7.3%(51 of 697) and 5.3%(8 of 151) of patients, respectively, both higher than karyotype. With the exception of recurrent deletion and duplication of chromosome 16p11.2 and 15q13.2q13.3, most copy-number changes were unique or identified in only a small subset of patients. CONCLUSIONS CMA had the highest detection rate among clinically available genetic tests for patients with ASD. Interpretation of microarray data is complicated by the presence of both novel and recurrent copy-number variants of unknown significance. Despite these limitations, CMA should be considered as part of the initial diagnostic evaluation of patients with ASD.

Individuals participating in biobanks and other large research projects are increasingly asked to provide broad consent for open-ended research use and widespread sharing of their biosamples and data. We assessed willingness to participate in a biobank using different consent and data sharing models, hypothesizing that willingness would be higher under more restrictive scenarios. Perceived benefits, concerns, and information needs were also assessed. In this experimental survey, individuals from 11 US healthcare systems in the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network were randomly allocated to one of three hypothetical scenarios: tiered consent and controlled data sharing; broad consent and controlled data sharing; or broad consent and open data sharing. Of 82,328 eligible individuals, exactly 13,000 (15.8%) completed the survey. Overall, 66% (95% CI: 63%-69%) of population-weighted respondents stated they would be willing to participate in a biobank; willingness and attitudes did not differ between respondents in the three scenarios. Willingness to participate was associated with self-identified white race, higher educational attainment, lower religiosity, perceiving more research benefits, fewer concerns, and fewer information needs. Most (86%, CI: 84%-87%) participants would want to know what would happen if a researcher misused their health information; fewer (51%, CI: 47%-55%) would worry about their privacy. The concern that the use of broad consent and open data sharing could adversely affect participant recruitment is not supported by these findings. Addressing potential participants' concerns and information needs and building trust and relationships with communities may increase acceptance of broad consent and wide data sharing in biobank research.

Purpose In 2011, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was announced, proposing de-identified human data and specimens be included in biobanks only if patients provide consent. In 2015, the NIH Genomic Data Sharing policy went into effect, requiring broad consent from almost all research participants. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of attitudes towards biobanking, broad consent, and data sharing. Bibliographic databases included MEDLINE®, Web of Science, EthxWeb and GenETHX. Study screening was conducted using DistillerSR™. Results The final 48 studies included surveys (n=23), focus groups (n=8), mixed methods (n=14), interviews (n=1), and consent form analyses (n=2). Study quality was characterized as good (n=19), fair (n=27), and poor (n=2). Although many participants objected, broad consent was often preferred over tiered or study-specific consent, particularly when broad consent was the only option, samples were de-identified, logistics of biobanks were communicated, and privacy was addressed. Willingness for data to be shared was high, but lower among individuals from under-represented minorities, individuals with privacy and confidentiality concerns, and if pharmaceutical companies had data access. Conclusions Additional research is needed to understand factors affecting willingness to give broad consent for biobank research and data sharing in order to address concerns to enhance acceptability.