4.7 Review

A framework for an evidence-based gene list relevant to autism spectrum disorder

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 367-376

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41576-020-0231-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CDMRP [AR160154]
  2. Foundation for Prader-Willi Research
  3. NR2F1 Foundation
  4. USP7 Foundation
  5. Boston Children's Hospital Neuroscience Clinical Cluster grant
  6. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) [R01MH110920]
  7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  8. GlaxoSmithKline-CIHR Endowed Chair in Genome Sciences at the Hospital for Sick Children
  9. University of Toronto
  10. NIMH [1U01MH119741-01]
  11. CIHR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is often grouped with other brain-related phenotypes into a broader category of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs). In clinical practice, providers need to decide which genes to test in individuals with ASD phenotypes, which requires an understanding of the level of evidence for individual NDD genes that supports an association with ASD. Consensus is currently lacking about which NDD genes have sufficient evidence to support a relationship to ASD. Estimates of the number of genes relevant to ASD differ greatly among research groups and clinical sequencing panels, varying from a few to several hundred. This Roadmap discusses important considerations necessary to provide an evidence-based framework for the curation of NDD genes based on the level of information supporting a clinically relevant relationship between a given gene and ASD. A curated list of genes that are relevant to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) would greatly benefit clinical genetic testing. This Roadmap discusses the need for an evidence-based framework for gene curation that is based on the level of information supporting a clinically relevant relationship between a given gene and ASD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available