Genomewide association studies and human disease.

Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, United Kingdom. at
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 05/2009; 360(17):1759-68. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra0808700
Source: PubMed
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The analyses of genetic factors contributing to Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other dementias have evolved at the same pace as genetic and genomic technologies are developed and improved. The identification of the first genes involved in AD arose from family-based studies, but risk factors have mainly been identified by studies comparing groups of patients with groups of controls. The best outcomes have been heavily associated with the capacity of interrogating genetic variability at the genome level without any particular a priori hypothesis. In this review we assess the role of genetic family studies in Alzheimer's disease and other dementias within the current status of dementias' and, particularly, AD's genetic architecture.
    Neurotherapeutics 10/2014; 11(4):732-737. DOI:10.1007/s13311-014-0295-9 · 3.88 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an autoimmune disease that represents a primary cause of neurological disability in the young adult population. Converging evidence supports the importance of genetic determinants for MS etiology. However, with the exception of the major histocompatibility complex, their nature has been elusive for more than 20years. In the last decade, the advent of large genome-wide association studies has significantly improved our understanding of the disease, leading to the golden era of MS genetic research. To date more than 110 genetic variants have been firmly associated to an increased risk of developing MS. A large part of these variants tag genes involved in the regulation of immune response and several of them are shared with other autoimmune diseases, suggesting a common etiological root for this class of disorders. Despite the impressive body of data obtained in the last years, we are still far from fully decoding MS genetic complexity. For example, we ignore how these genetic factors interact with each other and with the environment. Thus, the biggest challenge for the next era of MS research will consist in identifying and characterizing the molecular mechanisms and the cellular pathways in which these risk variants play a role. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Clinica Chimica Acta 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2015.01.034 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disclaimer: These ACMG Standards and Guidelines were developed primarily as an educational resource for clinical laboratory geneticists to help them provide quality clinical laboratory services. Adherence to these standards and guidelines is voluntary and does not necessarily assure a successful medical outcome. These Standards and Guidelines 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 these Standards and Guidelines. 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.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.Genet Med advance online publication 05 March 2015Genetics in Medicine (2015); doi:10.1038/gim.2015.30.
    Genetics in medicine: official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics 03/2015; DOI:10.1038/gim.2015.30 · 6.44 Impact Factor


Available from