Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype – Many Genes

Abstract

Background In the field of movement disorders, what you see (phenotype) is seldom what you get (genotype). Whereas 1 phenotype was previously associated to 1 gene, the advent of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated an exponential increase in disease‐causing genes and genotype–phenotype correlations, and the “one‐phenotype‐many‐genes” paradigm has become prominent. Objectives To highlight the “one‐phenotype‐many‐genes” paradigm by discussing the main challenges, perspectives on how to address them, and future directions. Methods We performed a scoping review of the various aspects involved in identifying the underlying molecular cause of a movement disorder phenotype. Results The notable challenges are (1) the lack of gold standards, overlap in clinical spectrum of different movement disorders, and variability in the interpretation of classification systems; (2) selecting which patients benefit from genetic tests and the choice of genetic testing; (3) problems in the variant interpretation guidelines; (4) the filtering of variants associated with disease; and (5) the lack of standardized, complete, and up‐to‐date gene lists. Perspectives to address these include (1) deep phenotyping and genotype–phenotype integration, (2) adherence to phenotype‐specific diagnostic algorithms, (3) implementation of current and complementary bioinformatic tools, (4) a clinical‐molecular diagnosis through close collaboration between clinicians and genetic laboratories, and (5) ongoing curation of gene lists and periodic reanalysis of genetic sequencing data. Conclusions Despite the rapidly emerging possibilities of NGS, there are still many steps to take to improve the genetic diagnostic yield. Future directions, including post‐NGS phenotyping and cohort analyses enriched by genotype–phenotype integration and gene networks, ought to be pursued to accelerate identification of disease‐causing genes and further improve our understanding of disease biology.

Updated Stroke Gene Panels: Rapid evolution of knowledge on monogenic causes of stroke

“…We are aware that this approach has missed genes that fulfill the criteria for SGP1 or SGP2 but that were not retrieved by our methodology. This includes some of the genes for moyamoya phenomenon, other vascular malformations, abnormalities of coagulation including CBL [ 15 ], DIAPH1 [ 16 , 17 ], CHD4, CNOT3, and SETD5 [ 16 ]. This inherent difficulty in compiling gene panels is well known.…”

Updated Stroke Gene Panels: Rapid evolution of knowledge on monogenic causes of stroke

“…As WES and WGS examine all genes simultaneously, falsepositive "chance" ndings are possible. Misinterpretation of such ndings can be minimized when only considering genes for which the known clinical phenotype corresponds to the one in the patient under investigation [8,17].…”

Relevance of Antibody Testing in Movement Disorders

“…The difference between a syndromic and a “molecular” diagnosis based on a specific antibody result impacts treatment, prognosis, and monitoring. As in genetics, where one phenotype can be associated with multiple genes (genetic heterogeneity), one movement disorder phenotype can be associated with multiple antibodies (antibody heterogeneity), each however with different implications 18,19 . For example, stiff person spectrum disorder (SPSD) can be associated with anti‐glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD), GlyR, amphiphysin, or dipeptidyl‐peptidase–like protein‐6 (DPPX), with differing implications 20 .…”