Evaluating the pathogenicity of a variant is challenging given the plethora of types of genetic evidence that laboratories consider. Deciding how to weigh each type of evidence is difficult, and standards have been needed. In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for the assessment of variants in genes associated with Mendelian diseases. Nine molecular diagnostic laboratories involved in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) consortium piloted these guidelines on 99 variants spanning all categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign, and benign). Nine variants were distributed to all laboratories, and the remaining 90 were evaluated by three laboratories. The laboratories classified each variant by using both the laboratory's own method and the ACMG-AMP criteria. The agreement between the two methods used within laboratories was high (K-alpha = 0.91) with 79% concordance. However, there was only 34% concordance for either classification system across laboratories. After consensus discussions and detailed review of the ACMG-AMP criteria, concordance increased to 71%. Causes of initial discordance in ACMG-AMP classifications were identified, and recommendations on clarification and increased specification of the ACMG-AMP criteria were made. In summary, although an initial pilot of the ACMG-AMP guidelines did not lead to increased concordance in variant interpretation, comparing variant interpretations to identify differences and having a common framework to facilitate resolution of those differences were beneficial for improving agreement, allowing iterative movement toward increased reporting consistency for variants in genes associated with monogenic disease.

Recommendations for laboratories to report incidental findings from genomic tests have stimulated interest in such results. In order to investigate the criteria and processes for assigning the pathogenicity of specific variants and to estimate the frequency of such incidental findings in patients of European and African ancestry, we classified potentially actionable pathogenic single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) in all 4300 European- and 2203 African-ancestry participants sequenced by the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project (ESP). We considered 112 gene-disease pairs selected by an expert panel as associated with medically actionable genetic disorders that may be undiagnosed in adults. The resulting classifications were compared to classifications from other clinical and research genetic testing laboratories, as well as with in silico pathogenicity scores. Among European-ancestry participants, 30 of 4300 (0.7%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.1%) had a disruptive variant that was expected to be pathogenic, whereas 52 (1.2%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. For African-ancestry participants, six of 2203 (0.3%) had a pathogenic SNV and six (0.3%) had an expected pathogenic disruptive variant, whereas 13 (0.6%) had likely pathogenic SNVs. Genomic Evolutionary Rate Profiling mammalian conservation score and the Combined Annotation Dependent Depletion summary score of conservation, substitution, regulation, and other evidence were compared across pathogenicity assignments and appear to have utility in variant classification. This work provides a refined estimate of the burden of adult onset, medically actionable incidental findings expected from exome sequencing, highlights challenges in variant classification, and demonstrates the need for a better curated variant interpretation knowledge base.

On page 1072 in the originally published version of this article, PS2 was a typo and should have read PS3 in the following sentence: ''The other most common examples of modified strength included the following: PVS1 (a predicted null variant in a gene where LOF is a known mechanism of disease) was downgraded from very strong four times, PS2 (well-established functional studies show a deleterious effect) was downgraded three times, and BS1 (MAF is too high for the disorder) was downgraded three times.'' The error has been corrected online, and the authors apologize for the oversight.

Transcriptional elongation is critical for gene expression regulation during embryogenesis. The super elongation complex (SEC) governs this process by mobilizing paused RNA polymerase II (RNAP2). Using exome sequencing, we discovered missense mutations in AFF4, a core component of the SEC in three unrelated probands with a novel syndrome that phenotypically overlaps Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS), that we have named CHOPS syndrome (C for Cognitive impairment and Coarse facies, H for Heart defects, O for Obesity, P for Pulmonary involvement and S for Short stature and Skeletal dysplasia). Transcriptome and chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) analyses demonstrated similar alterations of genome-wide binding of AFF4, cohesin and RNAP2 between CdLS and CHOPS syndrome. Direct molecular interaction between SEC, cohesin and RNAP2 was demonstrated. This data supports a common molecular pathogenesis for CHOPS syndrome and CdLS caused by disturbance of transcriptional elongation due to alterations in genome-wide binding of AFF4 and cohesin.

Purpose: Clinical sequencing emerging in healthcare may result in secondary findings (SFs). Methods: Seventy-four of 6,240 (1.2%) participants who underwent genome or exome sequencing through the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium received one or more SFs from the original ACMG-recommended 56 gene-condition pair list; we assessed clinical and psychosocial actions. Results: The overall adjusted prevalence of SFs in the ACMG 56 genes across the CSER consortium was 1.7%. Initially 32% of the family histories were positive, and post disclosure, this increased to 48%. The average cost of follow-up medical actions per finding up to a 1-year period was $128 (observed, range: $0-$678) and $421 (recommended, range: $141-$1114). Case reports revealed variability in the frequency of and follow-up on medical recommendations patients received associated with each SF gene-condition pair. Participants did not report adverse psychosocial impact associated with receiving SFs; this was corroborated by 18 participant (or parent) interviews. All interviewed participants shared findings with relatives and reported that relatives did not pursue additional testing or care. Conclusion: Our results suggest that disclosure of SFs shows little to no adverse impact on participants and adds only modestly to near term healthcare costs; additional studies are needed to confirm these findings.