Macklin‐Mantia, Sarah K.

Pathogenic variants in KMT5B , a lysine methyltransferase, are associated with global developmental delay, macrocephaly, autism, and congenital anomalies (OMIM # 617788). Given the relatively recent discovery of this disorder, it has not been fully characterized. Deep phenotyping of the largest ( n = 43) patient cohort to date identified that hypotonia and congenital heart defects are prominent features that were previously not associated with this syndrome. Both missense variants and putative loss-of-function variants resulted in slow growth in patient-derived cell lines. KMT5B homozygous knockout mice were smaller in size than their wild-type littermates but did not have significantly smaller brains, suggesting relative macrocephaly, also noted as a prominent clinical feature. RNA sequencing of patient lymphoblasts and Kmt5b haploinsufficient mouse brains identified differentially expressed pathways associated with nervous system development and function including axon guidance signaling. Overall, we identified additional pathogenic variants and clinical features in KMT5B -related neurodevelopmental disorder and provide insights into the molecular mechanisms of the disorder using multiple model systems.

AbstractAdvances have dated the genetic testing initially offered to evaluate for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risks. Previous research has demonstrated that many patients have not updated testing. This study reviewed the incidence of additional analysis after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result and offered updated testing with limited barriers to those who had not completed. After viewing an educational video and providing informed consent, eligible patients were mailed a saliva collection kit to complete an 84‐gene hereditary cancer panel at no personal cost. A total of 704 patients had completed BRCA1/2 only testing between 2001 and 2020. Fifteen percent (N = 102) of the 671 patients with an uninformative BRCA1/2 result had already completed expanded testing. Most, 74 of 102 (73%), had been rereferred to medical genetics during a clinical visit related to cancer care. Those who had already completed additional testing were more likely to have a personal history of cancer (92% vs. 79%, p = 0.002) and live locally (p = 0.032). Invitation to complete updated testing through this study was sent to 372 people, and 116 (31%) consented to participate. For 142 of the 256 who did not proceed with testing through the study, proof of receipt of research information was available. In total, 22 pathogenic variants were reported in 21 of the 226 patients with updated testing from before and including our study: ATM (4), CHEK2 (4), LZTR1 (1), MUTYH (3), NBN (1), NF1 (1), NTHL1 (1), PALB2 (4), PMS2 (1), RAD50 (1), and SPINK1 (1). Many potential barriers of retesting were eliminated by removing personal costs or travel requirements. Still, only about 30% of patients agreed to participate, and a significant portion elected not to proceed. Future research could focus on the discovery of other factors that dissuade patients and what measures may better inform them on potential benefits.

AbstractBackgroundAchalasia‐addisonianism‐alacrima syndrome, frequently referred to as Allgrove syndrome or Triple A syndrome, is a multisystem disorder resulting from homozygous or compound heterozygous pathogenic variants in the gene encoding aladin (AAAS). Aladin is a member of the WD‐repeat family of proteins and is a component of the nuclear pore complex. It is thought to be involved in nuclear import and export of molecules. Here, we describe an individual with a paternally inherited truncating variant and a maternally inherited, novel missense variant in AAAS presenting with alacrima, achalasia, anejaculation, optic atrophy, muscle weakness, dysarthria, and autonomic dysfunction.MethodsWhole‐exome sequencing was performed in the proband, sister, and parents. Variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. The localization of aladin to the nuclear pore was assessed in cells expressing the patient variant.ResultsFunctional testing of the maternally inherited variant, p.(Arg270Pro), demonstrated decreased localization of aladin to the nuclear pore in cells expressing the variant, indicating a deleterious effect. Follow‐up testing in the proband's affected sister revealed that she also inherited the biallelic AAAS variants.ConclusionsReview of the patient's clinical, pathological, and genetic findings resulted in a diagnosis of Triple A syndrome.

Introduction: Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient’s self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire. Methods: We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record. Results: Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients’ risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient’s family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire. Conclusions: Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.