ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2024
Considerations for reporting variants in novel candidate genes identified during clinical genomic testing.
Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of biallelic loss-of-functionJournal of medical genetics · 2026Article
- criTRia: A Classification System and Evidence Criteria for Tandem Repeat Locus-Disease Relationships.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Collaborative Genomics for Dystonia in Central and Eastern Europe: Successes Achieved, New Frontiers Ahead.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Article
- PubMatcher: a web app to support genomic data interpretation through simplified bibliographic research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2026Article
- Translating multi-omics into healthcare: requisites for scalable and equitable implementation.Human genomics · 2026Review
- Evaluating the Cost of Genomic Testing for Biomarker-Driven Therapies in Oncology.Oncology and therapy · 2026Article
- Case Report: Epidermal growth factor receptor germline variant associated with epilepsy and rare, distinctive cerebral MRI abnormalities.Frontiers in radiology · 2026Article
- Real-world evaluation of gnomAD variant co-occurrence information for haplotype phasing in autosomal recessive disorders.Human genomics · 2025Article
- GREGoR: accelerating genomics for rare diseases.Nature · 2025Article
- Gene-Disease Relationships in Kidney Genetics.Seminars in nephrology · 2025Review
- The evolving genetic landscape of neuromuscular fetal akinesias.Journal of neuromuscular diseases · 2025Review
- Combined genomics and proteomics unveils elusive variants and vast aetiologic heterogeneity in dystonia.Brain : a journal of neurology · 2025Article
- GREGoR: Accelerating Genomics for Rare Diseases.ArXiv · 2024Article
- Optical genome mapping identifies a homozygous deletion in the non-coding region of the SCN9A gene in individuals from the same family with congenital insensitivity to pain.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since the first novel gene discovery for a Mendelian condition was made via exome sequencing, the rapid increase in the number of genes known to underlie Mendelian conditions coupled with the adoption of exome (and more recently, genome) sequencing by diagnostic testing labs has changed the landscape of genomic testing for rare diseases. Specifically, many individuals suspected to have a Mendelian condition are now routinely offered clinical ES. This commonly results in a precise genetic diagnosis but frequently overlooks the identification of novel candidate genes. Such candidates are also less likely to be identified in the absence of large-scale gene discovery research programs. Accordingly, clinical laboratories have both the opportunity, and some might argue a responsibility, to contribute to novel gene discovery, which should, in turn, increase the diagnostic yield for many conditions. However, clinical diagnostic laboratories must necessarily balance priorities for throughput, turnaround time, cost efficiency, clinician preferences, and regulatory constraints and often do not have the infrastructure or resources to effectively participate in either clinical translational or basic genome science research efforts. For these and other reasons, many laboratories have historically refrained from broadly sharing potentially pathogenic variants in novel genes via networks such as Matchmaker Exchange, much less reporting such results to ordering providers. Efforts to report such results are further complicated by a lack of guidelines for clinical reporting and interpretation of variants in novel candidate genes. Nevertheless, there are myriad benefits for many stakeholders, including patients/families, clinicians, and researchers, if clinical laboratories systematically and routinely identify, share, and report novel candidate genes. To facilitate this change in practice, we developed criteria for triaging, sharing, and reporting novel candidate genes that are most likely to be promptly validated as underlying a Mendelian condition and translated to use in clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.