Richards Sue, Aziz Nazneen, Bale Sherri, Bick David, Das Soma, Gastier-Foster Julie, Grody Wayne W, Hegde Madhuri, Lyon Elaine, Spector Elaine, Voelkerding Karl, Rehm Heidi L
Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Knight Diagnostic Laboratories, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.
1] College of American Pathologists, Chicago, Illinois, USA [2] Current affiliation: Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24. doi: 10.1038/gim.2015.30. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants.(1) In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next-generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next-generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever-increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes, and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprising representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), and the College of American Pathologists to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP, and College of American Pathologists stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories, including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes, and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology-"pathogenic," "likely pathogenic," "uncertain significance," "likely benign," and "benign"-to describe variants identified in genes that cause Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classifying variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g., population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-approved laboratory, with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or the equivalent.
美国医学遗传学与基因组学学会(ACMG)此前制定了序列变异解读指南。(1)在过去十年中,随着高通量新一代测序技术的出现,测序技术迅速发展。通过采用和利用新一代测序技术,临床实验室目前正在进行越来越多的基因检测项目,涵盖基因分型、单基因、基因panel、外显子组、基因组、转录组以及针对遗传疾病的表观遗传学检测。由于检测复杂性增加,这种基因检测的转变伴随着序列解读方面的新挑战。在此背景下,ACMG于2013年召集了一个工作组,成员包括ACMG、分子病理学协会(AMP)以及美国病理学家学会的代表。该小组由临床实验室主任和临床医生组成。本报告代表了工作组的专家意见,并融入了ACMG、AMP以及美国病理学家学会利益相关者的意见。这些建议主要适用于临床实验室所使用的各类基因检测,包括基因分型、单基因、panel、外显子组和基因组检测。本报告建议使用特定的标准术语——“致病的”“可能致病的”“意义未明的”“可能良性的”和“良性的”——来描述在导致孟德尔疾病的基因中鉴定出的变异。此外,该建议描述了一个基于使用典型变异证据类型(如群体数据、计算数据、功能数据、家系分离数据)的标准将变异分类为这五类的过程。鉴于本报告中描述的临床基因检测分析和解读的复杂性增加,ACMG强烈建议临床分子基因检测应在经《临床实验室改进修正案》认可的实验室中进行,检测结果应由具有委员会认证的临床分子遗传学家或分子遗传病理学家或同等资质的人员进行解读。