The challenges of genome analysis in the health care setting

Genes

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 576-585

  Lucassen, Anneke ^a   Houlston, Richard S ^b  

^a PRINCESS ANNE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical practice; Consent; Disclosure; Genome sequencing; Incidental findings

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905589436     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20734425     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/genes5030576     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Government. HMs. Strategy for UK Life Sciences: One Year on. Available online: http://www.bisgovuk/assests/biscore/inovation/docs/s/12-1346-stragy-for-uk-life-sciences-one-year-onpdf/ (accessed on 4 July 2014).
2. Meacham, F.; Boffelli, D.; Dhahbi, J.; Martin, D.I.; Singer, M.; Pachter, L. Identification and correction of systematic error in high-throughput sequence data. BMC Bioinform. 2011, 12, 451.
3. Davies, K. The $1,000,000 genome interpretation. Bio-IT World 2010, 8, 50-54.
4. Zollner, S.; Pritchard, J.K. Overcoming the winner's curse: Estimating penetrance parameters from case-control data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 80, 605-615.
5. Ou, J.; Niessen, R.C.; Vonk, J.; Westers, H.; Hofstra, R.M.; Sijmons, R.H. A database to support the interpretation of human mismatch repair gene variants. Hum. Mutat. 2008, 29, 1337-1341.
6. Fokkema, I.F.; Taschner, P.E.; Schaafsma, G.C.; Celli, J.; Laros, J.F.; den Dunnen, J.T. LOVD v.2.0: The next generation in gene variant databases. Hum. Mutat. 2011, 32, 557-563.
7. Decipher Database. Available online: https://decipher.sanger.ac.uk/ (accessed on 4 July 2014).
8. Diagnostic Mutation Database. Available online: https://secure.dmudb.net/ngrl-rep/Home.do/ (accessed 4 July 2014).
9. Dalgleish, R.; Flicek, P.; Cunningham, F.; Astashyn, A.; Tully, R.E.; Proctor, G.; Chen, Y.; McLaren, W.M.; Larsson, P.; Vaughan, B.W.; et al. Locus Reference Genomic sequences: An improved basis for describing human DNA variants. Genome Med. 2010, 2, 24.
10. Act EDP. EU Data Protection Act Proposed Changes & Reforms. Updates to the Current EU Data Protection Acts Look Set to Radically Change the Way We Deal with Data. Available online: http://www.eudataprotectionlaw.com/ (accessed on 4 July 2014).
11. Handling of NHS patient data. Available online: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/health-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/cdd-2014/ (accessed on 4 July 2014).
12. Clayton, E.W.; McCullough, L.B.; Biesecker, L.G.; Joffe, S.; Ross, L.F.; Wolf, S.M.; Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research (CSER) Consortium Pediatrics Working Group. Addressing the ethical challenges in genetic testing and sequencing of children. Am. J. Bioeth. 2014, 14, 3-9.
13. Lucassen, A.; Widdershoven, G.; Metselaar, S.; Fenwick, A.; Parker, M. Genetic testing of children: The need for a family perspective. Am. J. Bioeth. 2014, 14, 26-28.
14. Crawford, G.; Fenwick, A.; Lucassen, A. A more fitting term in the incidental findings debate: One term does not fit all situations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, doi:10.1038/ejhg.2013.266.
15. Wolf, S.M. The past, present, and future of the debate over return of research results and incidental findings. Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 355-357.
16. Wolf, S.M.; Lawrenz, F.P.; Nelson, C.A.; Kahn, J.P.; Cho, M.K.; Clayton, E.W.; Fletcher, J.G.; Georgieff, M.K.; Hammerschmidt, D.; Hudson, K. et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: Analysis and recommendations. J. Law Med. Ethics 2008, 36, 219-248.
17. Bredenoord, A.L.; Kroes, H.Y.; Cuppen, E.; Parker, M.; van Delden, J.J. Disclosure of individual genetic data to research participants: The debate reconsidered. Trends Genet. 2011, 27, 41-47.
18. Gliwa, C.; Berkman, B.E. Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? Am. J. Bioeth. 2013, 13, 32-42.
19. Holtzman, N.A. ACMG recommendations on incidental findings are flawed scientifically and ethically. Genet. Med. 2013, 15, 750-751.
20. Crawford, G.; Foulds, N.; Fenwick, A.; Hallowell, N.; Lucassen, A. Genetic medicine and incidental findings: It is more complicated than deciding whether to disclose or not. Genet Med. 2013, 15, 896-899.
21. Green, R.C.; Berg, J.S.; Grody, W.W.; Kalia, S.S.; Korf, B.R.; Martin, C.L.; McGuire, A.L.; Nussbaum, R.L.; O'Daniel, J.M.; Ormond, K.E. et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet. Med. 2013, 15, 565-574.
22. Biesecker, L.G. Opportunities and challenges for the integration of massively parallel genomic sequencing into clinical practice: Lessons from the ClinSeq project. Genet. Med. 2012, 14, 393-398.
23. Genomics England. Genomics England Town Hall Event. Available online: http://www.genomicsengland.co.uk/town-hall-engagement-event/ (accessed on 4 July 2014).