Baker, Gordon et al. present the first international case series describing the neurodevelopmental disorder associated with Synaptotagmin 1 (SYT1) de novo missense mutations. Key features include movement abnormalities, severe intellectual disability, and hallmark EEG alterations. Expression of patients’ SYT1 mutations in mouse neurons disturbs presynaptic vesicle dynamics in a mutation-specific manner.

Ascertaining a diagnosis through exome sequencing can provide potential benefits to patients, insurance companies, and the healthcare system. Yet, as diagnostic sequencing is increasingly employed, vast amounts of human genetic data are produced that need careful curation. We discuss methods for accurately assessing the clinical validity of gene–disease relationships to interpret new research findings in a clinical context and increase the diagnostic rate. The specifics of a gene–disease scoring system adapted for use in a clinical laboratory are described. In turn, clinical validity scoring of gene–disease relationships can inform exome reporting for the identification of new or the upgrade of previous, clinically relevant gene findings. Our retrospective analysis of all reclassification reports from the first 4 years of diagnostic exome sequencing showed that 78% were due to new gene–disease discoveries published in the literature. Among all exome positive/likely positive findings in characterized genes, 32% were in genetic etiologies that were discovered after 2010. Our data underscore the importance and benefits of active and up‐to‐date curation of a gene–disease database combined with critical clinical validity scoring and proactive reanalysis in the clinical genomics era.

These results suggest that diagnostic exome sequencing would be an efficient primary diagnostic method for patients with autism spectrum disorders or autistic features. Moreover, our data may aid clinicians to better determine which subset of patients with autism spectrum disorder with additional clinical features would benefit the most from diagnostic exome sequencing.

Purpose:Diagnostic exome sequencing (DES) is now a commonly ordered test for individuals with undiagnosed genetic disorders. In addition to providing a diagnosis for characterized diseases, exome sequencing has the capacity to uncover novel candidate genes for disease.Methods:Family-based DES included analysis of both characterized and novel genetic etiologies. To evaluate candidate genes for disease in the clinical setting, we developed a systematic, rule-based classification schema.Results:Testing identified a candidate gene among 7.7% (72/934) of patients referred for DES; 37 (4.0%) and 35 (3.7%) of the genes received evidence scores of “candidate” and “suspected candidate,” respectively. A total of 71 independent candidate genes were reported among the 72 patients, and 38% (27/71) were subsequently corroborated in the peer-reviewed literature. This rate of corroboration increased to 51.9% (27/52) among patients whose gene was reported at least 12 months previously.Conclusions:Herein, we provide transparent, comprehensive, and standardized scoring criteria for the clinical reporting of candidate genes. These results demonstrate that DES is an integral tool for genetic diagnosis, especially for elucidating the molecular basis for both characterized and novel candidate genetic etiologies. Gene discoveries also advance the understanding of normal human biology and more common diseases.Genet Med 19 2, 224–235.

PurposeWe evaluated clinical and genetic features enriched in patients with multiple Mendelian conditions to determine which patients are more likely to have multiple potentially relevant genetic findings (MPRF).MethodsResults of the first 7698 patients who underwent exome sequencing at Ambry Genetics were reviewed. Clinical and genetic features were examined and degree of phenotypic overlap between the genetic diagnoses was evaluated.ResultsAmong patients referred for exome sequencing, 2% had MPRF. MPRF were more common in patients from consanguineous families and patients with greater clinical complexity. The difference in average number of organ systems affected is small: 4.3 (multiple findings) vs. 3.9 (single finding) and may not be distinguished in clinic.ConclusionPatients with multiple genetic diagnoses had a slightly higher number of organ systems affected than patients with single genetic diagnoses, largely because the comorbid conditions affected overlapping organ systems. Exome testing may be beneficial for all cases with multiple organ systems affected. The identification of multiple relevant genetic findings in 2% of exome patients highlights the utility of a comprehensive molecular workup and updated interpretation of existing genomic data; a single definitive molecular diagnosis from analysis of a limited number of genes may not be the end of a diagnostic odyssey.