4.7 Article

Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: Quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility

Journal

GENOME RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 421-428

Publisher

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.127845.111

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Library of Medicine [LM010470-01]
  2. Manton Center for Orphan Diseases at Children's Hospital Boston
  3. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [HD040128]
  4. BCM
  5. Baylor Annual Rind
  6. [HG02213]
  7. [HG005092]
  8. [AG027841]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is an emerging consensus that when investigators obtain genomic data from research participants, they may incur an ethical responsibility to inform at-risk individuals about clinically significant variants discovered during the course of their research. With whole-exome sequencing becoming commonplace and the falling costs of full-genome sequencing, there will be an increasingly large number of variants identified in research participants that may be of sufficient clinical relevance to share. An explicit approach to triaging and communicating these results has yet to be developed, and even the magnitude of the task is uncertain. To develop an estimate of the number of variants that might qualify for disclosure, we apply recently published recommendations for the return of results to a defined and representative set of variants and then extrapolate these estimates to genome scale. We find that the total number of variants meeting the threshold for recommended disclosure ranges from 3955-12,579 (3.79%-12.06%, 95% Cl) in the most conservative estimate to 6998-17,189 (6.69%-16.48%, 95% Cl) in an estimate including variants with variable disease expressivity. Additionally, if the growth rate from the previous 4 yr continues, we estimate that the total number of disease-associated variants will grow 37% over the next 4 yr.

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