Kurt D. Christensen

Isolation and Characterization of MC3T3-E1 Preosteoblast Subclones with Distinct In Vitro and In Vivo Differentiation/Mineralization Potential†

A series of subclonal cell lines with high or low differentiation/mineralization potential after growth in the presence of ascorbic acid (AA) were derived from murine MC3T3‐E1 cells. Subclones were characterized in terms of their ability to mineralize a collagenous extracellular matrix both in vitro and in vivo and express osteoblast‐related genes. When compared with nonmineralizing cells, mineralizing subclones selectively expressed mRNAs for the osteoblast markers, bone sialoprotein (BSP), osteocalcin (OCN), and the parathyroid hormone (PTH)/parathyroid hormone‐related protein (PTHrP) receptor. In contrast, alkaline phosphatase mRNA was present in certain nonmineralizing as well as mineralizing subclones, suggesting that its expression may be subject to different controls from other osteoblast markers. Only highly differentiating subclones exhibited strong AA‐dependent induction of a transiently transfected OCN promoter‐luciferase reporter gene, indicating that there was a good correlation between mRNA levels and transcriptional activity. Consistent with its postulated role in biomineralization, BSP as measured by Western blotting was only present in mineralizing subclones. After implantation into immunodeficient mice, highly differentiating subclones formed bone‐like ossicles resembling woven bone, while poorly differentiating cells only produced fibrous tissue. Interestingly, subclones with both high and low differentiation potential produced similar amounts of collagen in culture and expressed comparable basal levels of mRNA encoding Osf2/Cbfa1, an osteoblast‐related transcription factor. Although some strongly differentiating cells exhibited a modest AA‐dependent up‐regulation of Osf2/Cbfa1 mRNA, there was no clear relationship between levels of this message and induction of mRNAs for other differentiation markers. Thus, the mere presence of Osf2/Cbfa1 in a subclone was not sufficient for osteoblast differentiation. These subclones will be very useful for studying critical events in osteoblast differentiation and mineralization.

The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine

BackgroundWhole genome sequencing (WGS) is already being used in certain clinical and research settings, but its impact on patient well-being, health-care utilization, and clinical decision-making remains largely unstudied. It is also unknown how best to communicate sequencing results to physicians and patients to improve health. We describe the design of the MedSeq Project: the first randomized trials of WGS in clinical care.Methods/DesignThis pair of randomized controlled trials compares WGS to standard of care in two clinical contexts: (a) disease-specific genomic medicine in a cardiomyopathy clinic and (b) general genomic medicine in primary care. We are recruiting 8 to 12 cardiologists, 8 to 12 primary care physicians, and approximately 200 of their patients. Patient participants in both the cardiology and primary care trials are randomly assigned to receive a family history assessment with or without WGS. Our laboratory delivers a genome report to physician participants that balances the needs to enhance understandability of genomic information and to convey its complexity. We provide an educational curriculum for physician participants and offer them a hotline to genetics professionals for guidance in interpreting and managing their patients’ genome reports. Using varied data sources, including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and review of clinical data, we measure the attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of physician and patient participants at multiple time points before and after the disclosure of these results.DiscussionThe impact of emerging sequencing technologies on patient care is unclear. We have designed a process of interpreting WGS results and delivering them to physicians in a way that anticipates how we envision genomic medicine will evolve in the near future. That is, our WGS report provides clinically relevant information while communicating the complexity and uncertainty of WGS results to physicians and, through physicians, to their patients. This project will not only illuminate the impact of integrating genomic medicine into the clinical care of patients but also inform the design of future studies.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT01736566

Communicating genetic risk information for common disorders in the era of genomic medicine.

Communicating genetic risk information in ways that maximize understanding and promote health is increasingly important given the rapidly expanding availability and capabilities of genomic technologies. A well-developed literature on risk communication in general provides guidance for best practices, including presentation of information in multiple formats, attention to framing effects, use of graphics, sensitivity to the way numbers are presented, parsimony of information, attentiveness to emotions, and interactivity as part of the communication process. Challenges to communicating genetic risk information include deciding how best to tailor it, streamlining the process, deciding what information to disclose, accepting that communications may have limited influence, and understanding the impact of context. Meeting these challenges has great potential for empowering individuals to adopt healthier lifestyles and improve public health, but will require multidisciplinary approaches and collaboration.

Providers' knowledge of genetics: A survey of 5915 individuals and families with genetic conditions

Purpose: Individuals affected by genetic conditions are increasingly likely to seek information about inheritance and risk factors from their primary care physicians rather than a geneticist, but several studies suggest that few health care providers are capable of fulfilling that role or are comfortable doing so. Acknowledging that the adoption of new genetics knowledge and technologies is often patient-driven, we asked affected individuals and family members about their experiences in encounters with a variety of nongenetics-trained health care providers.Methods: Staff at the National Coalition for Health Professional Education in Genetics, the Genetic Alliance, and a University of Maryland graduate student in genetic counseling drafted a web-based survey. We recruited study participants from the Genetic Alliance, and a total of 5915 respondents completed the questionnaire between December 2004 and August 2005.Results: Overall, 64% of respondents reported receiving no genetics education materials from the provider type named most important in the management of the condition in the family. We present knowledge ratings for various provider types and themes emerging from written descriptions of positive and disappointing experiences.Conclusion: We discuss the implications of these and other results for continuing genetics education and for clinical practice.

Using Alzheimer's disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics

Roberts JS, Christensen KD, Green RC. Using Alzheimers disease as a model for genetic risk disclosure: implications for personal genomics.

Understandings of basic genetics in the United States: results from a national survey of black and white men and women.

Aim: This study examined understandings of basic genetic concepts among Americans. Method: In a national telephone survey of 1,200 Americans with equal representation among Black and White men and women, subjects responded to 8 items developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts that assessed understanding of basic concepts in multiple domains, including inheritance, genetics and race, and genetics and behavior. Results: Over 70% of subjects responded correctly on items about the genetic similarity of identical twins and siblings. Less than half of subjects responded correctly on all other items. Understanding of genetics was lowest in three areas: types/locations of genes in the body (29% correct), a genetic basis for race (25% correct), and the influence of single genes on behaviors (24% correct). Logistic regression models controlling for age and education showed some differences by race and gender on specific items but also showed that understandings are generally similar across these groups. Conclusion: Misunderstandings about genetics are common among Black and White American men and women. Responses appear to reflect personal experiences, group values and interests. These findings emphasize the need for initiatives to improve the public’s genetic literacy as well as a need for further investigation in this domain.

A systematic approach to the reporting of medically relevant findings from whole genome sequencing.

BackgroundThe MedSeq Project is a randomized clinical trial developing approaches to assess the impact of integrating genome sequencing into clinical medicine. To facilitate the return of results of potential medical relevance to physicians and patients participating in the MedSeq Project, we sought to develop a reporting approach for the effective communication of such findings.MethodsGenome sequencing was performed on the Illumina HiSeq platform. Variants were filtered, interpreted, and validated according to methods developed by the Laboratory for Molecular Medicine and consistent with current professional guidelines. The GeneInsight software suite, which is integrated with the Partners HealthCare electronic health record, was used for variant curation, report drafting, and delivery.ResultsWe developed a concise 5–6 page Genome Report (GR) featuring a single-page summary of results of potential medical relevance with additional pages containing structured variant, gene, and disease information along with supporting evidence for reported variants and brief descriptions of associated diseases and clinical implications. The GR is formatted to provide a succinct summary of genomic findings, enabling physicians to take appropriate steps for disease diagnosis, prevention, and management in their patients.ConclusionsOur experience highlights important considerations for the reporting of results of potential medical relevance and provides a framework for interpretation and reporting practices in clinical genome sequencing.

Incorporating ethnicity into genetic risk assessment for Alzheimer disease: The REVEAL study experience

Purpose: To describe how investigators in a multisite randomized clinical trial addressed scientific and ethical issues involved in creating risk models based on genetic testing for African American participants.Methods: The following informed our decision whether to stratify risk assessment by ethnicity: evaluation of epidemiological data, appraisal of benefits and risks of incorporating ethnicity into calculations, and feasibility of creating ethnicity-specific risk curves. Once the decision was made, risk curves were created based on data from a large, diverse study of first-degree relatives of patients with Alzheimer disease.Results: Review of epidemiological data suggested notable differences in risk between African Americans and whites and that Apolipoprotein E genotype predicts risk in both groups. Discussions about the benefits and risks of stratified risk assessments reached consensus that estimates based on data from whites should not preclude enrolling African Americans, but population-specific risk curves should be created if feasible. Risk models specific to ethnicity, gender, and Apolipoprotein E genotype were subsequently developed for the randomized clinical trial that oversampled African Americans.Conclusion: The Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer Disease study provides an instructive example of a process to develop risk assessment protocols that are sensitive to the implications of genetic testing for multiple ethnic groups with differing levels of risk.

Assessing the Costs and Cost-Effectiveness of Genomic Sequencing

Despite dramatic drops in DNA sequencing costs, concerns are great that the integration of genomic sequencing into clinical settings will drastically increase health care expenditures. This commentary presents an overview of what is known about the costs and cost-effectiveness of genomic sequencing. We discuss the cost of germline genomic sequencing, addressing factors that have facilitated the decrease in sequencing costs to date and anticipating the factors that will drive sequencing costs in the future. We then address the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and pharmacogenomic applications of genomic sequencing, with an emphasis on the implications for secondary findings disclosure and the integration of genomic sequencing into general patient care. Throughout, we ground the discussion by describing efforts in the MedSeq Project, an ongoing randomized controlled clinical trial, to understand the costs and cost-effectiveness of integrating whole genome sequencing into cardiology and primary care settings.

Are physicians prepared for whole genome sequencing? a qualitative analysis.

Although the integration of whole genome sequencing (WGS) into standard medical practice is rapidly becoming feasible, physicians may be unprepared to use it. Primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of WGS received genomics education before completing semi‐structured interviews. Themes about preparedness were identified in transcripts through team‐based consensus‐coding. Data from 11 PCPs and 9 cardiologists suggested that physicians enrolled in the trial primarily to prepare themselves for widespread use of WGS in the future. PCPs were concerned about their general genomic knowledge, while cardiologists were concerned about how to interpret specific types of results and secondary findings. Both cohorts anticipated preparing extensively before disclosing results to patients by using educational resources with which they were already familiar, and both cohorts anticipated making referrals to genetics specialists as needed. A lack of laboratory guidance, time pressures, and a lack of standards contributed to feeling unprepared. Physicians had specialty‐specific concerns about their preparedness to use WGS. Findings identify specific policy changes that could help physicians feel more prepared, and highlight how providers of all types will need to become familiar with interpreting WGS results.