Hutton M. Kearney

ACMG Standards and Guidelines for constitutional cytogenomic microarray analysis, including postnatal and prenatal applications: revision 2013

Microarray methodologies, including array comparative genomic hybridization and single-nucleotide polymorphism–detecting arrays, are accepted as an appropriate first-tier test for the evaluation of imbalances associated with intellectual disability, autism, and multiple congenital anomalies. This technology also has applicability in prenatal specimens. To assist clinical laboratories in validation of microarray methodologies for constitutional applications, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics has produced the following revised professional standards and guidelines.Genet Med 15 11, 901–909.Genetics in Medicine (2013); 15 11, 901–909. doi:10.1038/gim.2013.129

Diagnostic Implications of Excessive Homozygosity Detected by SNP-Based Microarrays: Consanguinity, Uniparental Disomy, and Recessive Single-Gene Mutations

Single nucleotide polymorphism–based microarrays used in diagnostic laboratories for the detection of copy number alterations also provide data allowing for surveillance of the genome for regions of homozygosity. The finding of one (or more) long contiguous stretch of homozygosity (LCSH) in a constitutional (nonneoplastic) diagnostic setting can lead to the diagnosis of uniparental disomy involving an imprinted chromosome or homozygous single gene mutations. The focus of this review is to describe the analytical detection of LCSH, clinical implications of excessive homozygosity, and considerations for follow-up diagnostic testing.

American College of Medical Genetics recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities

Genomic copy number microarrays have significantly increased the diagnostic yield over a karyotype for clinically significant imbalances in individuals with developmental delay, intellectual disability, multiple congenital anomalies, and autism, and they are now accepted as a first tier diagnostic test for these indications. As it is not feasible to validate microarray technology that targets the entire genome in the same manner as an assay that targets a specific gene or syndromic region, a new paradigm of validation and regulation is needed to regulate this important diagnostic technology. We suggest that these microarray platforms be evaluated and manufacturers regulated for the ability to accurately measure copy number gains or losses in DNA (analytical validation) and that the subsequent interpretation of the findings and assignment of clinical significance be determined by medical professionals with appropriate training and certification. To this end, the American College of Medical Genetics, as the professional organization of board-certified clinical laboratory geneticists, herein outlines recommendations for the design and performance expectations for clinical genomic copy number microarrays and associated software intended for use in the postnatal setting for detection of constitutional abnormalities.

Section E9 of the American College of Medical Genetics technical standards and guidelines: Fluorescence in situ hybridization

This updated Section E9 has been incorporated into and supersedes the previous Section E9 in Section E: Clinical Cytogenetics of the 2008 Edition (Revised 02/2007) American College of Medical Genetics Standards and Guidelines for Clinical Genetics Laboratories. This section deals specifically with the standards and guidelines applicable to fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis.

Clinical Utility of Chromosomal Microarray Analysis of DNA from Buccal Cells: Detection of Mosaicism in Three Patients

Mosaic chromosomal abnormalities are relatively common. However, mosaicism may be missed due to multiple factors including failure to recognize clinical indications and order appropriate testing, technical limitations of diagnostic assays, or sampling tissue (s) in which mosaicism is either not present, or present at very low levels. Blood leukocytes have long been the “gold standard” sample for cytogenetic analysis; however, the culturing process for routine chromosome analysis can complicate detection of mosaicism since the normal cell line may have a growth advantage in culture, or may not be present in the cells that produce metaphases (the lymphocytes). Buccal cells are becoming increasingly utilized for clinical analyses and are proving to have many advantages. Buccal swabs allow for simple and noninvasive DNA collection. When coupled with a chromosomal microarray that contains single nucleotide polymorphic probes, analysis of buccal cells can maximize a clinician’s opportunity to detect cytogenetic mosaicism. We present three cases of improved diagnosis of mosaic aberrations using buccal specimens for chromosomal microarray analysis. In each case, the aberration was either undetectable in blood or present at such a low level it likely could have gone undetected. These cases highlight the limitations of certain laboratory methodologies for identifying mosaicism. We also present practice implications for genetic counselors, including clinic workflow changes and counseling approaches based on increasing use of buccal samples.

Clinical experience with array CGH: Case presentations from nine months of practice

A total of 124 individuals were tested in the initial 9 months that array CGH technology was offered to clinical genetics patients. In 11 of these patients array CGH identified a previously unsuspected diagnosis. A suspected diagnosis was confirmed in three patients. A single case in this series proved to be a polymorphic copy number variant. This paper describes five of the patients with previously unsuspected diagnoses in detail. We suggest that array CGH is an improved tool ready for routine use in clinical genetics.

Patterns of homozygosity in patients with uniparental disomy: detection rate and suggested reporting thresholds for SNP microarrays

PurposeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarrays can easily identify whole-chromosome isodisomy but are unable to detect whole-chromosome heterodisomy. However, most cases of uniparental disomy (UPD) involve combinations of heterodisomy and isodisomy, visualized on SNP microarrays as long continuous stretches of homozygosity (LCSH). LCSH raise suspicion for, but are not diagnostic of, UPD, and reporting necessitates confirmatory testing. The goal of this study was to define optimal LCSH reporting standards.MethodsEighty-nine individuals with known UPD were analyzed using chromosomal microarray. The LCSH patterns were compared with those in a phenotypically normal population to predict the clinical impact of various reporting thresholds. False-positive and -negative rates were calculated at various LCSH thresholds.ResultsTwenty-seven of 84 cases with UPD had no significant LCSH on the involved chromosome. Fifty UPD-positive samples had LCSH of varying sizes: the average size of terminal LCSH was 11.0 megabases while the average size of interstitial LCSH was 24.1 megabases. LCSH in the normal population tended to be much smaller (average 4.3 megabases) and almost exclusively interstitial; however, overlap between the populations was noted.ConclusionWe hope that this work will aid clinical laboratories in the recognition and reporting of LCSH.

Copy number variant analysis using genome-wide mate-pair sequencing

Copy number variation (CNV) is a common form of structural variation detected in human genomes, occurring as both constitutional and somatic events. Cytogenetic techniques like chromosomal microarray (CMA) are widely used in analyzing CNVs. However, CMA techniques cannot resolve the full nature of these structural variations (i.e. the orientation and location of associated breakpoint junctions) and must be combined with other cytogenetic techniques, such as karyotyping or FISH, to do so. This makes the development of a next‐generation sequencing (NGS) approach capable of resolving both CNVs and breakpoint junctions desirable. Mate‐pair sequencing (MPseq) is a NGS technology designed to find large structural rearrangements across the entire genome. Here we present an algorithm capable of performing copy number analysis from mate‐pair sequencing data. The algorithm uses a step‐wise procedure involving normalization, segmentation, and classification of the sequencing data. The segmentation technique combines both read depth and discordant mate‐pair reads to increase the sensitivity and resolution of CNV calls. The method is particularly suited to MPseq, which is designed to detect breakpoint junctions at high resolution. This allows for the classification step to accurately calculate copy number levels at the relatively low read depth of MPseq. Here we compare results for a series of hematological cancer samples that were tested with CMA and MPseq. We demonstrate comparable sensitivity to the state‐of‐the‐art CMA technology, with the benefit of improved breakpoint resolution. The algorithm provides a powerful analytical tool for the analysis of MPseq results in cancer.

Diagnostic cytogenetic testing following positive noninvasive prenatal screening results: a clinical laboratory practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)

Disclaimer: ACMG Clinical Laboratory Practice Resources are developed primarily as an educational tool for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory genetic services. Adherence to these practice resources is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. This Clinical Laboratory Practice Resource should not be considered inclusive of all proper procedures and tests or exclusive of other procedures and tests that are reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. In determining the propriety of any specific procedure or test, the clinical laboratory geneticist should apply his or her own professional judgment to the specific circumstances presented by the individual patient or specimen. Clinical laboratory geneticists are encouraged to document in the patient’s record the rationale for the use of a particular procedure or test, whether or not it is in conformance with this Clinical Laboratory Practice Resource. They also are advised to take notice of the date any particular guideline was adopted, and to consider other relevant medical and scientific information that becomes available after that date. It also would be prudent to consider whether intellectual property interests may restrict the performance of certain tests and other procedures.Noninvasive prenatal screening (NIPS) using cell-free DNA has been rapidly adopted into prenatal care. Since NIPS is a screening test, diagnostic testing is recommended to confirm all cases of screen-positive NIPS results. For cytogenetics laboratories performing confirmatory testing on prenatal diagnostic samples, a standardized testing algorithm is needed to ensure that the appropriate testing takes place. This algorithm includes diagnostic testing by either chorionic villi sampling or amniocentesis samples and encompasses chromosome analysis, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and chromosomal microarray.

Response to Rosenberg et al.

of the autosomal genome in ROH exceeding a specified size— using a fixed threshold of 2–5 Mb, the computation can be performed using, as the threshold, the boundary size separating class C ROH from shorter ROH in classes A and B. This boundary size varies across populations, typically in a range from 0.9 to 2.2 Mb.3 Therefore, we suggest that use of a population-specific threshold obtained from a systematic calculation will be more informative for inference of parental relatedness than the use of a shared predetermined threshold applied equally in all populations. For 64 worldwide groups, Supplementary Table S1 online of Pemberton et al.3 provides such population-specific thresholds. Genetic estimation of ancestry will be informative for guiding threshold choices in analyzing a particular genome. Third, although Rehder et al.1 frame the identification of ROH in terms of detection of “absence of heterozygosity,” genotyping errors or mutations can place one or a few heterozygous sites inside a long segment that otherwise has been inherited identically by descent. Because complete absence of heterozygosity can be too stringent a condition for ROH identification, current methods accommodate a small number of heterozygous sites within a largely homozygous region by reducing the chance that the segment is identified as an ROH but not eliminating the region from consideration entirely.3 A perspective of positive identification of ROH, probabilistically allowing for occasional heterozygotes, enables a sensitive data-driven approach to detecting autozygosity.3 Because even without consanguinity, distributions of baseline autozygosity levels vary considerably across individuals and populations, for definitive evaluation of parental relatedness, it will continue to be advisable to test additional family members. However, taking into account population variation, ROH size classes, and occasional heterozygous sites in ROH can aid in reducing the potential for errors in the initial determination of a close parental relationship on the basis of a single genomic test.