Christian, Susan

Abstract Aims Pathogenic gain-of-function variants in CACAN1C cause type-8 long QT syndrome (LQT8). We sought to describe the electrocardiographic features in LQT8 and utilize molecular modelling to gain mechanistic insights into its genetic culprits. Methods and results Rare variants in CACNA1C were identified from genetic testing laboratories. Treating physicians provided clinical information. Variant pathogenicity was independently assessed according to recent guidelines. Pathogenic (P) and likely pathogenic (LP) variants were mapped onto a 3D modelled structure of the Cav1.2 protein. Nine P/LP variants, identified in 23 patients from 19 families with non-syndromic LQTS were identified. Six variants, found in 79% of families, clustered to a 4-residue section in the cytosolic II–III loop region which forms a region capable of binding STAC SH3 domains. Therefore, variants may affect binding of SH3-domain containing proteins. Arrhythmic events occurred in similar proportions of patients with II–III loop variants and with other P/LP variants (53% vs. 48%, P = 0.41) despite shorter QTc intervals (477 ± 31 ms vs. 515 ± 37 ms, P = 0.03). A history of sudden death was reported only in families with II–III loop variants (60% vs. 0%, P = 0.03). The predominant T-wave morphology was a late peaking T wave with a steep descending limb. Exercise testing demonstrated QTc prolongation on standing and at 4 min recovery after exercise. Conclusion The majority of P/LP variants in patients with CACNA1C-mediated LQT8 cluster in an SH3-binding domain of the cytosolic II–III loop. This represents a ‘mutation hotspot’ in LQT8. A late-peaking T wave with a steep descending limb and QT prolongation on exercise are commonly seen.

AbstractLaboratory genetic counseling is becoming increasingly common as a result of increased laboratory services and genetic testing menus, as well as growing job responsibilities. Christian et al. (2012) provided the first quantitative data regarding the roles of the laboratory‐based genetic counselor (LBGC) finding that two of the most prevalent roles are as customer liaisons and communicators of test results. The goal of the present study was to further delineate the role of the LBGC by addressing specific tasks that LBGCs are involved with on a day‐to‐day basis. A survey was designed to expand upon themes identified in the Christian et al. (2012) study by querying specific tasks performed in several categories of potential LBGC job duties. An invitation for LBGCs to participate was distributed via email to the membership of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors (CAGC). We identified 121 genetic counselors who primarily work in the laboratory setting or whose job role includes a laboratory component. Almost all respondents performed customer liaison/case coordination (95 %), and interpretation and result reporting (88 %). The most frequently performed tasks within these categories involved addressing questions from clients, making phone calls with genetic testing results, obtaining clinical or family history information for results interpretation, and composing case‐specific interpretations for unique results and/or obtaining literature references to support interpretations. The study results also point to trends of expanding roles in sales and marketing, variant interpretation and management responsibilities. Results of this study may be useful to further define the full scope of practice of LBGCs, aid in the development of new LBGC positions and expand current positions to include roles related to test development, research, and student supervision. It may also aid in curriculum updates for training programs to increase exposure to LBGC roles.