Differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses have been observed between individuals following natural infection or vaccination. In addition to already known factors, such as age, sex, COVID-19 severity, comorbidity, vaccination status, hybrid immunity, and duration of infection, inter-individual variations in SARS-CoV-2 immune responses may, in part, be explained by structural differences brought about by genetic variation in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules responsible for the presentation of SARS-CoV-2 antigens to T effector cells. While dendritic cells present peptides with HLA class I molecules to CD8+ T cells to induce cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses (CTLs), they present peptides with HLA class II molecules to T follicular helper cells to induce B cell differentiation followed by memory B cell and plasma cell maturation. Plasma cells then produce SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we review published data linking HLA genetic variation or polymorphisms with differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses. While there is evidence that heterogeneity in antibody response might be related to HLA variation, there are conflicting findings due in part to differences in study designs. We provide insight into why more research is needed in this area. Elucidating the genetic basis of variability in the SARS-CoV-2 immune response will help to optimize diagnostic tools and lead to the development of new vaccines and therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases.

Background This study aimed to identify and resolve discordant variant interpretations across clinical molecular genetic laboratories through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository (COGR), an online collaborative effort for variant sharing and interpretation. Methods Laboratories uploaded variant data to the Franklin Genoox platform. Reports were issued to each laboratory, summarising variants where conflicting classifications with another laboratory were noted. Laboratories could then reassess variants to resolve discordances. Discordance was calculated using a five-tier model (pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), variant of uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign (LB), benign (B)), a three-tier model (LP/P are positive, VUS are inconclusive, LB/B are negative) and a two-tier model (LP/P are clinically actionable, VUS/LB/B are not). We compared the COGR classifications to automated classifications generated by Franklin. Results Twelve laboratories submitted classifications for 44 510 unique variants. 2419 variants (5.4%) were classified by two or more laboratories. From baseline to after reassessment, the number of discordant variants decreased from 833 (34.4% of variants reported by two or more laboratories) to 723 (29.9%) based on the five-tier model, 403 (16.7%) to 279 (11.5%) based on the three-tier model and 77 (3.2%) to 37 (1.5%) based on the two-tier model. Compared with the COGR classification, the automated Franklin classifications had 94.5% sensitivity and 96.6% specificity for identifying actionable (P or LP) variants. Conclusions The COGR provides a standardised mechanism for laboratories to identify discordant variant interpretations and reduce discordance in genetic test result delivery. Such quality assurance programmes are important as genetic testing is implemented more widely in clinical care.

The purpose of this study was to develop a national program for Canadian diagnostic laboratories to compare DNA-variant interpretations and resolve discordant-variant classifications using the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes as a case study. BRCA1 and BRCA2 variant data were uploaded and shared through the Canadian Open Genetics Repository (COGR; http://www.opengenetics.ca). A total of 5,554 variant observations were submitted; classification differences were identified and comparison reports were sent to participating laboratories. Each site had the opportunity to reclassify variants. The data were analyzed before and after the comparison report process to track concordant- or discordant-variant classifications by three different models. Variant-discordance rates varied by classification model: 38.9% of variants were discordant when using a five-tier model, 26.7% with a three-tier model, and 5.0% with a two-tier model. After the comparison report process, the proportion of discordant variants dropped to 30.7% with the five-tier model, to 14.2% with the three-tier model, and to 0.9% using the two-tier model. We present a Canadian interinstitutional quality improvement program for DNA-variant interpretations. Sharing of variant knowledge by clinical diagnostic laboratories will allow clinicians and patients to make more informed decisions and lead to better patient outcomes.

Background Exome and genome sequencing have been demonstrated to increase diagnostic yield in paediatric populations, improving treatment options and providing risk information for relatives. There are limited studies examining the clinical utility of these tests in adults, who currently have limited access to this technology. Methods Patients from adult and cancer genetics clinics across Toronto, Ontario, Canada were recruited into a prospective cohort study evaluating the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in adults. Eligible patients were ≥18 years of age and suspected of having a hereditary disorder but had received previous uninformative genetic test results. In total, we examined the diagnostic utility of exome and genome sequencing in 47 probands and 34 of their relatives who consented to participate and underwent exome or genome sequencing. Results Overall, 17% (8/47) of probands had a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant identified in a gene associated with their primary indication for testing. The diagnostic yield for patients with a cancer history was similar to the yield for patients with a non-cancer history (4/18 (22%) vs 4/29 (14%)). An additional 24 probands (51%) had an inconclusive result. Secondary findings were identified in 10 patients (21%); three had medically actionable results. Conclusions This study lends evidence to the diagnostic utility of exome or genome sequencing in an undiagnosed adult population. The significant increase in diagnostic yield warrants the use of this technology. The identification and communication of secondary findings may provide added value when using this testing modality as a first-line test.