Findings made in gene panel to whole genome sequencing: data, knowledge, ethics–and consequences?

Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics

Volumn 16, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 1259-1270

  Winkler, Eva C ^a   Wiemann, Stefan ^a  

^a GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

additional findings; consent; ethics; exome sequencing; gene panel; genetic variation; Genome sequencing

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; DIAGNOSIS; DNA SEQUENCE; EDUCATION; ETHICS; EXOME; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC VARIATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MARKET; STRATIFICATION; BIOLOGY; GENETIC ASSOCIATION STUDY; GENOMICS; GERMLINE MUTATION; HIGH THROUGHPUT SEQUENCING; HUMAN GENOME; INCIDENTAL FINDING; INFORMED CONSENT; PROCEDURES; TRENDS;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; GENETIC ASSOCIATION STUDIES; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME, HUMAN; GENOMICS; GERM-LINE MUTATION; HIGH-THROUGHPUT NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCING; HUMANS; INCIDENTAL FINDINGS; INFORMED CONSENT;

EID: 84981274431     PISSN: 14737159     EISSN: 17448352     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14737159.2016.1212662     Document Type: Article

References (130)

1. Watson J, Crick F., A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. 1953;171:737–738.
2. Ceccaldi R, Rondinelli B, D’Andrea AD. Repair pathway choices and consequences at the double-strand break. Trends Cell Biol. 2016;26(1):52–64.
3. Wu S, Powers S, Zhu W, et al. Substantial contribution of extrinsic risk factors to cancer development. Nature. 2016;529(7584):43–47.
4. Bebenek K, Kunkel TA. Functions of DNA polymerases. Adv Protein Chem. 2004;69:137–165.
5. Heitzer E, Tomlinson I. Replicative DNA polymerase mutations in cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2014;24:107–113.
6. Xu C, Zhou W, Wang Y, et al. Hepatitis B virus-induced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Lett. 2014;345(2):216–222.
7. Lawrence MS, Stojanov P, Polak P, et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature. 2013;499(7457):214–218.•• Cancer genomes are highly heterogeneous in the number and nature of genomic and genetic variation. This heterogeneity complicates diagnosis and therapy decision.
8. McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine JHUB, MD. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM; [cited 2016 May 13]. Avialble from:http://www.omim.org/.
9. Rausch T, Jones DT, Zapatka M, et al. Genome sequencing of pediatric medulloblastoma links catastrophic DNA rearrangements with TP53 mutations. Cell. 2012;148(1–2):59–71.
10. Biesecker BB, Boehnke M, Calzone K, et al. Genetic counseling for families with inherited susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. JAMA. 1993;269(15):1970–1974.
11. Nagase H, Nakamura Y. Mutations of the APC (adenomatous polyposis coli) gene. Hum Mutat. 1993;2(6):425–434.
12. Raymond VM, Gray SW, Roychowdhury S, et al. Germline findings in tumor-only sequencing:points to consider for clinicians and laboratories. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108:4.
13. Stratton MR, Campbell PJ, Futreal PA. The cancer genome. Nature. 2009;458:719–724.
14. Vissers LE, Gilissen C, Veltman JA. Genetic studies in intellectual disability and related disorders. Nat Rev Genet. 2016;17(1):9–18.
15. Lejeune J, Turpin R, Gautier M. [Mongolism; a chromosomal disease (trisomy)]. Bull Acad Natl Med. 1959;143(11–12):256–265.
16. Tal M, Wetzler M, Josefberg Z, et al. Sporadic amplification of the HER2/neu protooncogene in adenocarcinomas of various tissues. Cancer Res. 1988;48(6):1517–1520.
17. Sudmant PH, Rausch T, Gardner EJ, et al. An integrated map of structural variation in 2,504 human genomes. Nature. 2015;526:(7571):75–81.• Structural variation is not always associated with disease. (Human) Genomes have a huge degree of natural variation indicative of the robustness of the biological system. This variation complicates interpretation of findings in individual’s genomes.
18. Lander ES, Linton LM, Birren B, et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. International human genome sequencing consortium. Nature. 2001;409(6822):860–921.
19. Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science. 2001;291(5507):1304–1351.
20. Genomes Project C, Abecasis GR, Auton A, et al. An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes. Nature. 2012;491(7422):56–65.
21. The Cancer Genome Atlas Research N, Weinstein JN, Collisson EA, et al. The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project. Nature Genet. 2013;45:(10):1113–1120.
22. International Cancer Genome Consortium, Hudson TJ, Anderson W, et al. International network of cancer genome projects. Nature. 2010;464:(7291):993–998.
23. Meienberg J, Bruggmann R, Oexle K, et al. Clinical sequencing:is WGS the better WES? Hum Genet. 2016;135:359–362.
24. Genomes Project C, Auton A, Brooks LD, et al. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526:(7571):68–74.• Genetic variation is not always associated with disease. (Human) Genomes have a huge degree of natural variation indicative of the robustness of the biological system. This variation complicates interpretation of findings in individual’s genomes.
25. Ben-Neriah Y, Daley GQ, Mes-Masson AM, `. The chronic myelogenous leukemia-specific P210 protein is the product of the bcr/abl hybrid gene. Science. 1986;233(4760):212–214.
26. Weischenfeldt J, Simon R, Feuerbach L, et al. Integrative genomic analyses reveal an androgen-driven somatic alteration landscape in early-onset prostate cancer. Cancer Cell. 2013;23(2):159–170.
27. Martincorena I, Roshan A, Gerstung M, et al. Tumor evolution. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin. Science. 2015;348:(6237):880–886.• Oncogenic mutations are not restricted to tumors but are rather found also in ‘normal’ tissues. The incidence of mutational events compared to that of cancer suggests that the body is able to cope with most mutation events. This finding complicates early detection of cancer using sequencing data.
28. Behjati S, Huch M, van Boxtel R, et al. Genome sequencing of normal cells reveals developmental lineages and mutational processes. Nature. 2014;513(7518):422–425.
29. Prahallad A, Sun C, Huang S, et al. Unresponsiveness of colon cancer to BRAF(V600E) inhibition through feedback activation of EGFR. Nature. 2012;483(7387):100–103.
30. Lupski JR, Gonzaga-Jauregui C, Yang YP, et al. Exome sequencing resolves apparent incidental findings and reveals further complexity of SH3TC2 variant alleles causing charcot-marie-tooth neuropathy. Genome Med. 2013;5(6):57.
31. Brookes AJ, Robinson PN. Human genotype-phenotype databases:aims, challenges and opportunities. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16:(12):702–715.•• Integration and frequent updating of genotype–phenotype databases is a key issue for the comprehensive interpretation of any kinds of findings, always regarding the respective state-of-the-art of biomedical knowledge.
32. Maxwell Kara N, Hart Steven N, Vijai J, et al. Evaluation of ACMG-guideline-based variant classification of cancer susceptibility and non-cancer-associated genes in families affected by breast cancer. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98(5):801–817.
33. Melton C, Reuter JA, Spacek DV, et al. Recurrent somatic mutations in regulatory regions of human cancer genomes. Nature Genet. 2015;47(7):710–716.
34. Arsenic R, Treue D, Lehmann A, et al. Comparison of targeted next-generation sequencing and sanger sequencing for the detection of PIK3CA mutations in breast cancer. BMC Clin Pathol. 2015;15:20.
35. Proost D, Vandeweyer G, Meester JAN, et al. Performant mutation identification using targeted next-generation sequencing of 14 thoracic aortic aneurysm genes. Hum Mutat. 2015;36(8):808–814.
36. Samorodnitsky E, Jewell BM, Hagopian R, et al. Evaluation of hybridization capture versus amplicon-based methods for whole-exome sequencing. Hum Mutat. 2015;36(9):903–914.
37. Shigemizu D, Momozawa Y, Abe T, et al. Performance comparison of four commercial human whole-exome capture platforms. Sci Rep. 2015;5:12742.
38. Gordon AS, Fulton RS, Qin X, et al. PGRNseq:a targeted capture sequencing panel for pharmacogenetic research and implementation. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2016. doi:10.1097/FPC.0000000000000202. PMC4935646
39. Benjamini Y, Speed TP. Summarizing and correcting the GC content bias in high-throughput sequencing. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(10):e72.
40. Aird D, Ross MG, Chen WS, et al. Analyzing and minimizing PCR amplification bias in Illumina sequencing libraries. Genome Biol. 2011;12(2):R18.
41. Information NCfB. Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 38 patch release 7 (GRCh38.p7); [cited 2016 April 29]. Available from:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/assembly/GCF_000001405.33.
42. National Human Genome Research Institute. DNA Sequencing Costs:data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP); [cited 2016 April 29]. Available from:https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts.
43. Mardis ER. Anticipating the $1,000 genome. Genome Biol. 2006;7:112.
44. Muir P, Li S, Lou S, et al. The real cost of sequencing:scaling computation to keep pace with data generation. Genome Biol. 2016;17(1):53.
45. McGinn S, Gut IG. DNA sequencing - spanning the generations. N Biotechnol. 2013;30(4):366–372.
46. Alioto TS, Buchhalter I, Derdak S, et al. A comprehensive assessment of somatic mutation detection in cancer using whole-genome sequencing. Nat Commun. 2015;6:10001.
47. Witkiewicz AK, McMillan EA, Balaji U, et al. Whole-exome sequencing of pancreatic cancer defines genetic diversity and therapeutic targets. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6744.
48. Yates LR, Gerstung M, Knappskog S, et al. Subclonal diversification of primary breast cancer revealed by multiregion sequencing. Nat Med. 2015;21(7):751–759.
49. Cooper CS, Eeles R, Wedge DC, et al. Analysis of the genetic phylogeny of multifocal prostate cancer identifies multiple independent clonal expansions in neoplastic and morphologically normal prostate tissue. Nature Genet. 2015;47(4):367–372.
50. McKusick VA. The defect in marfan syndrome. Nature. 1991;352(6333):279–281.
51. O’Roak BJ, Vives L, Fu W, et al. Multiplex targeted sequencing identifies recurrently mutated genes in autism spectrum disorders. Science. 2012;338(6114):1619–1622.
52. Sahin M, Sur M. Genes, circuits, and precision therapies for autism and related neurodevelopmental disorders. Science. 2015;350:6263.
53. Stephens PJ, Greenman CD, Fu B, et al. Massive genomic rearrangement acquired in a single catastrophic event during cancer development. Cell. 2011;144(1):27–40.
54. Sudmant PH, Mallick S, Nelson BJ, et al. Global diversity, population stratification, and selection of human copy-number variation. Science. 2015;349(6253):aab3761.
55. Haller F, Knopf J, Ackermann A, et al. Paediatric and adult soft tissue sarcomas with NTRK1 gene fusions:a subset of spindle cell sarcomas unified by a prominent myopericytic/haemangiopericytic pattern. J Pathol. 2016;238(5):700–710.
56. Beadling C, Wald AI, Warrick A, et al. A multiplexed amplicon approach for detecting gene fusions by next-generation sequencing. J Mol Diagn. 2016;18(2):165–175.
57. Zhang J, White NM, Schmidt HK, et al. INTEGRATE:gene fusion discovery using whole genome and transcriptome data. Genome Res. 2016;26(1):108–118.
58. Lam HY, Mu XJ, Stutz AM, et al. Nucleotide-resolution analysis of structural variants using breakseq and a breakpoint library. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(1):47–55.
59. Barthelmeß S, Geddert H, Boltze C, et al. Solitary fibrous tumors (SFTs)/hemangiopericytomas (HPCs) with different variants of the NAB2-STAT6 gene fusion are characterized by specific histomorphology and distinct clinicopathological features. Am J Pathol. 2014;184(4):1209–1218.
60. Wiemann S, Kolb-Kokocinski A, Poustka A. Alternative pre-mRNA processing regulates cell-type specific expression of the IL4l1 and NUP62 genes. BMC Biol. 2005;3(1):16.
61. Jividen K, Li H. Chimeric RNAs generated by intergenic splicing in normal and cancer cells. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2014;53(12):963–971.
62. Liu B, Filippi S, Roy A, et al. Stem and progenitor cell dysfunction in human trisomies. EMBO Rep. 2015;16(1):44–62.
63. Zoghbi HY, Beaudet AL. Epigenetics and human disease. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2016;8:2.
64. Eckersley-Maslin MA, Spector DL. Random monoallelic expression:regulating gene expression one allele at a time. Trends Genet. 2014;30(6):237–244.
65. Oncologists partner with Watson on genomics. Cancer Discov. 2015;5:(8):788.
66. Firnkorn D, Knaup-Gregori P, Lorenzo Bermejo J, et al. Alignment of high-throughput sequencing data inside in-memory databases. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:476–480.
67. Giardine B, Borg J, Higgs DR, et al. Systematic documentation and analysis of human genetic variation in hemoglobinopathies using the microattribution approach. Nature Genet. 2011;43(4):295–301.
68. Johnson MD, Zuo H, Lee KH, et al. Pharmacological characterization of 4-hydroxy-N-desmethyl tamoxifen, a novel active metabolite of tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;85(2):151–159.
69. Wolf SM, Lawrenz FP, Nelson CA, et al. Managing incidental findings in human subjects research:analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):219–248, 211.
70. Schuol S, Schickhardt C, Wiemann S, et al. So rare we need to hunt for them:reframing the ethical debate on incidental findings. Genome Med. 2015;7(1):83.
71. Amendola LM, Dorschner MO, Robertson PD, et al. Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants:challenges of variant classification. Genome Res. 2015;25(3):305–315.
72. German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Judgment of the Court (VI Zivilsenat). Az. VI ZR 284/09.2010 [Internet]. 2010 Dec 21. [cited 2016 July 20]. Available from:http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=2010-12-21&nr=54820&pos=25&anz=37•• A high-court decision about nondisclosure of a clinically relevant additional finding from a diagnostic test.
73. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Dierickx K. To tell or not to tell? A systematic review of ethical reflections on incidental findings arising in genetics contexts. Eur J Hum Genet. 2013;21(3):248–255.
74. Green RC, Berg JS, Grody WW, et al. ACMG recommendations for reporting of incidental findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing. Genet Med. 2013;15:(7):565–574.** The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics recommended routine testing for a number of potential mutations in addition to those of relevance for the indication genetic testing had been intended to resolve. This positive list has been a first attempt to enlarge the scope of genetic testing beyond individual diseases.
75. Gliwa C, Berkman BE. Response to open peer commentaries on “do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings?”. Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(5):W10–11.
76. Gliwa C, Berkman BE. Do researchers have an obligation to actively look for genetic incidental findings? Am J Bioeth. 2013;13(2):32–42.
77. Parsons DW, Roy A, Plon SE, et al. Clinical tumor sequencing:an incidental casualty of the american college of medical genetics and genomics recommendations for reporting of incidental findings. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(21):2203–2205.
78. Wolf SM, Annas GJ, Elias S. Point-counterpoint. Patient autonomy and incidental findings in clinical genomics. Science. 2013;340(6136):1049–1050.
79. McGuire AL, Joffe S, Koenig BA, et al. Point-counterpoint. Ethics and genomic incidental findings. Science. 2013;340(6136):1047–1048.
80. American College of Medical G, Genomics. Incidental findings in clinical genomics:a clarification. Genet Med. 2013;15(8):664–666.
81. Allyse M, Michie M. Not-so-incidental findings:the ACMG recommendations on the reporting of incidental findings in clinical whole genome and whole exome sequencing. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31(8):439–441.
82. Committee On Bioethics, Committee On Genetics, American College Of Medical Genetics, Genomics Social Ethical and Legal Issues Committee. Ethical and policy issues in genetic testing and screening of children. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):620–622.
83. German Society of Human Genetics. Statement of the German Society of Human Genetics on Genetic Testing in Children and Adolescents; 2013 Available from:http://www.gfhev.de/en/documents/doc/2013_08_01_Genetic_Testing_in_Children_and_Adolescents.pdf.
84. Burke W, Antommaria AH, Bennett R, et al. Recommendations for returning genomic incidental findings? We need to talk! Genet Med. 2013;15(11):854–859.
85. Directors ABo. ACMG policy statement:updated recommendations regarding analysis and reporting of secondary findings in clinical genome-scale sequencing. Genet Med. 2015;17(1):68–69.
86. Dewey FE, Grove ME, Pan C, et al. Clinical interpretation and implications of whole-genome sequencing. Jama. 2014;311(10):1035–1045.
87. Wevers MR, Ausems MG, Verhoef S, et al. Does rapid genetic counseling and testing in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients cause additional psychosocial distress? results from a randomized clinical trial. Genet Med. 2016;18(2):137–144.
88. Taber JM, Aspinwall LG, Stump TK, et al. Genetic test reporting enhances understanding of risk information and acceptance of prevention recommendations compared to family history-based counseling alone. J Behav Med. 2015;38(5):740–753.
89. Christensen KD, Roberts JS, Whitehouse PJ, et al. Disclosing pleiotropic effects during genetic risk assessment for alzheimer disease. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(3):155–163.
90. DiMillo J, Samson A, Theriault A, et al. Genetic testing:when prediction generates stigmatization. J Health Psychol. 2015;20(4):393–400.
91. Schrader KA, Cheng DT, Joseph V, et al. Germline variants in targeted tumor sequencing using matched normal DNA. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(1):104–111.
92. Jones S, Anagnostou V, Lytle K, et al. Personalized genomic analyses for cancer mutation discovery and interpretation. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(283):283ra253.
93. Catenacci DV, Amico AL, Nielsen SM, et al. Tumor genome analysis includes germline genome:are we ready for surprises? Int J Cancer. 2015;136(7):1559–1567.
94. Rafiullah R, Aslamkhan M, Paramasivam N, et al. Homozygous missense mutation in the LMAN2L gene segregates with intellectual disability in a large consanguineous Pakistani family. J Med Genet. 2016;53(2):138–144.
95. Matilainen S, Isohanni P, Euro L, et al. Mitochondrial encephalomyopathy and retinoblastoma explained by compound heterozygosity of SUCLA2 point mutation and 13q14 deletion. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015;23(3):325–330.
96. Cnossen WR, te Morsche RH, Hoischen A, et al. Whole-exome sequencing reveals LRP5 mutations and canonical Wnt signaling associated with hepatic cystogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111(14):5343–5348.
97. Foster MW, Mulvihill JJ, Sharp RR. Evaluating the utility of personal genomic information. Genet Med. 2009;11(8):570–574.
98. Townsend A, Adam S, Birch PH, et al. “I want to know what’s in Pandora’s Box”:comparing stakeholder perspectives on incidental findings in clinical whole genomic sequencing. Am J Med Genet A. 2012;158A(10):2519–2525.
99. McGuire AL, McCullough LB, Evans JP. The indispensable role of professional judgment in genomic medicine. JAMA. 2013;309(14):1465–1466.
100. Henderson GE, Wolf SM, Kuczynski KJ, et al. The challenge of informed consent and return of results in translational genomics:empirical analysis and recommendations. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42(3):344–355.
101. Boycott K, Hartley T, Adam S, et al. The clinical application of genome-wide sequencing for monogenic diseases in Canada:position statement of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists. J Med Genet. 2015;52(7):431–437.
102. Sanderson S, Zimmern R, Kroese M, et al. How can the evaluation of genetic tests be enhanced? Lessons learned from the ACCE framework and evaluating genetic tests in the United Kingdom. Genet Med. 2005;7(7):495–500.
103. Christenhusz GM, Devriendt K, Van Esch H, et al. Ethical signposts for clinical geneticists in secondary variant and incidental finding disclosure discussions. Med Health Care Philos. 2015;18(3):361–370.
104. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008; [cited 2016 May 13]. Available from:https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/gina.cfm.
105. Bundesministerium für Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. Gesetz über genetische Untersuchungen bei Menschen; [cited 2016 April 29]. Available from:http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gendg/.
106. Roche MI, Berg JS. Incidental findings with genomic testing:implications for genetic counseling practice. Curr Genet Med Rep. 2015;3(4):166–176.
107. Appelbaum PS, Parens E, Waldman CR, et al. Models of consent to return of incidental findings in genomic research. Hastings Cent Rep. 2014;44(4):22–32.
108. Ball MP, Bobe JR, Chou MF, et al. Harvard personal genome project:lessons from participatory public research. Genome Med. 2014;6(2):10.
109. Stein LD, Knoppers BM, Campbell P, et al. Data analysis:create a cloud commons. Nature. 2015;523(7559):149–151.
110. Dremann S. Palo Alto Online. Palo Alto DNA-privacy case could have wide implications. [cited 2016 April 29]. Available from:http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/01/24/palo-alto-dna-privacy-case-could-have-wide-implications.
111. Knoppers BM, Zawati MH, Senecal K. Return of genetic testing results in the era of whole-genome sequencing. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16:(9):553–559.• The return of findings from genetic testing has been under discussion for some time. Knoppers and colleagues provide an overview of the legislative constraints applied in different countries and make suggestions as to how resolve these issues in the future.
112. High Court (Ireland). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2015:maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner; [cited 2016 May 13]. http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-362/14.
113. Global Alliance for Genomics & Health. Framework for Responsible Sharing of Genomic and Health-Related Data; [cited 2016 May 13]. Available from:https://genomicsandhealth.org/about-the-global-alliance/key-documents/framework-responsible-sharing-genomic-and-health-related-data.
114. Project EURAT “Ethical and Legal Aspects of Whole Human Genome Sequencing”. Cornerstones for an ethically and legally informed practice of whole genome sequencing:code of conduct and patient consent models [Internet]. Marsilius Kolleg of University Heidelberg; 2016. [cited 2016 Jun 26]. Available from:http://www.marsilius-kolleg.uni-heidelberg.de/md/einrichtungen/mk/presse/mk_eurat_journal_en_2016_web.pdf
115. Levenson D. 23andMe markets carrier screening service directly to consumers:service offers results on carrier status, raises concerns among geneticists. Am J Med Genet A. 2016;170(2):293–294.
116. Azimi M, Schmaus K, Greger V, et al. Carrier screening by next-generation sequencing:health benefits and cost effectiveness. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2016;4(3):292–302.
117. Snell RG, MacMillan JC, Cheadle JP, et al. Relationship between trinucleotide repeat expansion and phenotypic variation in Huntington’s disease. Nature Genet. 1993;4(4):393–397.
118. Strittmatter WJ, Saunders AM, Schmechel D, et al. Apolipoprotein E:high-avidity binding to beta-amyloid and increased frequency of type 4 allele in late-onset familial Alzheimer disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1993;90(5):1977–1981.
119. Van Driest SL, Wells QS, Stallings S, et al. Association of arrhythmia-related genetic variants with phenotypes documented in electronic medical records. JAMA. 2016;315(1):47–57.
120. Eccles DM, Mitchell G, Monteiro AN, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(10):2057–2065.
121. Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, et al. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science. 2013;339(6117):321–324.
122. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Vorhaus DB, et al. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9(5):406–411.
123. Angrist M. Eyes wide open:the personal genome project, citizen science and veracity in informed consent. Per Med. 2009;6(6):691–699.
124. Mandl KD, Kohane IS. Time for a patient-driven health information economy? N Engl J Med. 2016;374:(3):205–208.• An article advocating the broad implementation and utilization of electronic patient records in clouds and provision of access via internet and smartphone apps.
125. Delaney SK, Hultner ML, Jacob HJ, et al. Toward clinical genomics in everyday medicine:perspectives and recommendations. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2016;16(5):521–532.
126. Le Tourneau C, Delord JP, Goncalves A, et al. Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA):a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1324–1334.
127. Padrez KA, Ungar L, Schwartz HA, et al. Linking social media and medical record data:a study of adults presenting to an academic, urban emergency department. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(6):414–423.
128. Powell GE, Seifert HA, Reblin T, et al. Social media listening for routine post-marketing safety surveillance. Drug Saf. 2016;39:443–454.
129. Del Vicario M, Bessi A, Zollo F, et al. The spreading of misinformation online. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(3):554–559.
130. Humer C, Finkle J. Healthcare firms at risk; hackers value medical records over credit data. San Diego (CA): Wells Media Group, Inc; 2014.• This article deals with the commercial value of genetic information.