Trio Exome in a Consanguineous Family: Variant of Uncertain Significance in a Novel Gene
A 3-year-old boy presents with global developmental delay, hypotonia, and dysmorphic features. His parents are first cousins and healthy. Trio whole-exome sequencing (WES) is performed. After filtering, a homozygous missense variant in a gene not previously associated with human disease is identified in the proband. The variant is absent from gnomAD and predicted damaging by multiple in silico tools. The gene is highly expressed in the brain and has a mouse knockout model with neurological phenotypes. The parents are heterozygous carriers. The clinical team is considering this as a candidate gene. The laboratory uses a clinical exome with average coverage of 100x and >95% of bases covered at >20x. The variant has a QUAL score of 500 and is confirmed by Sanger sequencing. No other pathogenic variants are found.
1. What is the classification of this variant according to ACMG/AMP guidelines? Justify your answer using the criteria.
Read the worked answer
The variant is a homozygous missense in a novel disease gene. According to ACMG/AMP 2015 guidelines, we evaluate criteria:
- PM2 (absent from controls) – applicable, but note gnomAD may not include populations similar to this consanguineous family; however, it is absent.
- PP3 (multiple lines of computational evidence support a deleterious effect) – applicable.
- PS3 (well-established functional studies) – not available; mouse knockout is model organism evidence, not a functional assay for the variant.
- PM1 (mutational hotspot) – no.
- PP1 (co-segregation) – only one affected individual; not applicable.
- PS2/PM6 (de novo) – not applicable.
- PVS1 (null variant in gene where LOF is known mechanism) – not applicable because it's missense and gene-disease relationship is unknown.
- PP4 (phenotype highly specific for gene) – not applicable because gene not previously associated.
Thus, the variant meets PM2, PP3, and possibly PP4 if phenotype is specific (but not established). This yields a maximum of Uncertain Significance (VUS). Even with homozygosity in a consanguineous family, without additional evidence (e.g., functional studies, additional families), it cannot be classified as likely pathogenic. The ACMG criteria for novel gene-disease associations require more evidence. Therefore, the correct classification is VUS.
2. What additional evidence would be needed to upgrade this variant to likely pathogenic? Describe at least three types of evidence and how they would be assessed.
Read the worked answer
To upgrade to likely pathogenic, we need evidence beyond PM2 and PP3. Possible additional evidence:
- Functional studies (PS3): Introduce the variant into a model system (e.g., patient-derived fibroblasts, CRISPR knock-in mice) and demonstrate a functional defect (e.g., loss of protein function, abnormal cellular phenotype) that is consistent with the disease mechanism. The study must be well-validated and reproducible.
- Case-control or cohort data: Identify additional unrelated affected individuals with homozygous or compound heterozygous variants in the same gene and similar phenotype. If multiple families are reported, this could provide PS4 (prevalence in affected vs controls) or PP1 (co-segregation).
- Gene-disease association: Establish the gene as disease-causing through independent evidence such as:
- Expression data: Show gene is expressed in relevant tissues (brain) at appropriate developmental stages.
- Animal models: A mouse knockout or knock-in that recapitulates the human phenotype provides supporting evidence (but not PS3 for the specific variant).
- Protein interaction: Show the variant disrupts a known protein-protein interaction or pathway.
- Segregation: If additional affected family members are available, demonstrate co-segregation of the variant with disease (PP1).
- mRNA studies: If the variant affects splicing, RNA analysis could show aberrant splicing (PS3 or PVS1 if null).
- Control data: Ensure the variant is absent in large population databases and in ancestry-matched controls.
With one strong functional study (PS3) plus PM2 and PP3, the variant could be upgraded to likely pathogenic. Alternatively, if additional families are found, PS4 could apply. The key is to gather evidence that specifically links the variant to the disease mechanism.