The developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEE) are a heterogeneous group of chronic encephalopathies frequently associated with rare de novo nonsynonymous coding variants in neuronally expressed genes. Here, we describe eight probands with a DEE phenotype comprising intellectual disability, epilepsy, and hypotonia. Exome trio analysis showed de novo variants in TRPM3, encoding a brain-expressed transient receptor potential channel, in each. Seven probands were identically heterozygous for a recurrent substitution, p.(Val837Met), in TRPM3’s S4–S5 linker region, a conserved domain proposed to undergo conformational change during gated channel opening. The eighth individual was heterozygous for a proline substitution, p.(Pro937Gln), at the boundary between TRPM3’s flexible pore-forming loop and an adjacent alpha-helix. General-population truncating variants and microdeletions occur throughout TRPM3, suggesting a pathomechanism other than simple haploinsufficiency. We conclude that de novo variants in TRPM3 are a cause of intellectual disability and epilepsy.

Alternative polyadenylation (APA) creates distinct transcripts from the same gene by cleaving the pre-mRNA at poly(A) sites that can lie within the 3′ untranslated region (3′UTR), introns, or exons. Most studies focus on APA within the 3′UTR; however, here, we show that CPSF6 insufficiency alters protein levels and causes a developmental syndrome by deregulating APA throughout the transcript. In neonatal humans and zebrafish larvae, CPSF6 insufficiency shifts poly(A) site usage between the 3′UTR and internal sites in a pathway-specific manner. Genes associated with neuronal function undergo mostly intronic APA, reducing their expression, while genes associated with heart and skeletal function mostly undergo 3′UTR APA and are up-regulated. This suggests that, under healthy conditions, cells toggle between internal and 3′UTR APA to modulate protein expression.

An accurate diagnosis of syndromic craniosynostosis (CS) is important for personalized treatment, surveillance, and genetic counselling. We describe detailed clinical criteria for syndromic CS and the distribution of genetic diagnoses within the cohort. The prospective registry of the Norwegian National Unit for Craniofacial Surgery was used to retrieve individuals with syndromic CS born between 1 January 2002 and 30 June 2019. All individuals were assessed by a clinical geneticist and classified using defined clinical criteria. A stepwise approach consisting of single-gene analysis, comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH), and exome-based high-throughput sequencing, first filtering for 72 genes associated with syndromic CS, followed by an extended trio-based panel of 1570 genes were offered to all syndromic CS cases. A total of 381 individuals were registered with CS, of whom 104 (27%) were clinically classified as syndromic CS. Using the single-gene analysis, aCGH, and custom-designed panel, a genetic diagnosis was confirmed in 73% of the individuals (n = 94). The diagnostic yield increased to 84% after adding the results from the extended trio-based panel. Common causes of syndromic CS were found in 53 individuals (56%), whereas 26 (28%) had other genetic syndromes, including 17 individuals with syndromes not commonly associated with CS. Only 15 individuals (16%) had negative genetic analyses. Using the defined combination of clinical criteria, we detected among the highest numbers of syndromic CS cases reported, confirmed by a high genetic diagnostic yield of 84%. The observed genetic heterogeneity encourages a broad genetic approach in diagnosing syndromic CS.

Background: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a neurodegenerative disease that affects motor neurons. In Europe, disease-causing genetic variants have been identified in 40–70% of familial ALS patients and approximately 5% of sporadic ALS patients. In Norway, the contribution of genetic variants to ALS has not yet been studied. In light of the potential development of personalized medicine, knowledge of the genetic causes of ALS in a population is becoming increasingly important. The present study provides clinical and genetic data on familial and sporadic ALS patients in a Norwegian population-based cohort. Methods: Blood samples and clinical information from ALS patients were obtained at all 17 neurological departments throughout Norway during a 2-year period. Genetic analysis of the samples involved expansion analysis of C9orf72 and exome sequencing targeting 30 known ALS-linked genes. The variants were classified using genotype-phenotype correlations and bioinformatics tools. Results: A total of 279 ALS patients were included in the study. Of these, 11.5% had one or several family members affected by ALS, whereas 88.5% had no known family history of ALS. A genetic cause of ALS was identified in 31 individuals (11.1%), among which 18 (58.1%) were familial and 13 (41.9%) were sporadic. The most common genetic cause was the C9orf72 expansion (6.8%), which was identified in 8 familial and 11 sporadic ALS patients. Pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants of SOD1 and TBK1 were identified in 10 familial and 2 sporadic cases. C9orf72 expansions dominated in patients from the Northern and Central regions, whereas SOD1 variants dominated in patients from the South-Eastern region. Conclusion: In the present study, we identified several pathogenic gene variants in both familial and sporadic ALS patients. Restricting genetic analysis to only familial cases would miss more than 40 percent of those with a disease-causing genetic variant, indicating the need for genetic analysis in sporadic cases as well.

The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as “maybe report” after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.