Posted by: Karen Hanson, ASHG Health Professional Education Programs Manager
ASHG is proud to announce our newest health professional educational program, “Prenatal cfDNA screening”. In response to rapid developments in prenatal cfDNA technology and concerns about its incorrect use, we developed this program to address a need for genetics education within the OB/GYN community, in collaboration with the Mayo Clinic and with help from colleagues from Kaiser Permanente California.
A needs assessment of this group suggested that their biggest challenges were communicating the fundamentals of prenatal cfDNA screening with patients and helping patients understand screening results. Based on these findings, the new program uses a case-based focus to model patient communication and review the basic science behind cfDNA technology, as well as discuss methods for incorporating this test into clinical practice. Our content was developed and reviewed by a team of experts in the field of prenatal care. The result is a program that includes three online education modules built around pre-test and post-test patient encounters, video case presentations using a standardized patient to demonstrate the integration of cfDNA screening into clinical practice, and point-of-care educational tools.
Above: Health Professional Education Programs Manager Karen Hanson describes ASHG’s genetics education programs for providers.
Similar to our previous educational programming for health professionals, our goal for “Prenatal cfDNA Screening” is to improve the practice of medicine and patient outcomes. We’re hoping that this program helps health professionals improve communication with their patients regarding prenatal screening options in general and prenatal cfDNA screening specifically. To encourage participation, this program is modular, so that each part can be viewed separately at one’s own pace. In addition, it is CME accredited through the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science.
Posted by: Nancy J. Cox, ASHG President; and Peter C. Scacheri, Chair of ASHG’s Program Committee
We are pleased to share some exciting news with the ASHG community: this year’s Presidential Symposium will feature a discussion of global health and genomics between two absolute legends in the health and science world: Bill Gates, Co-chair and Trustee of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Francis Collins, MD, PhD, Director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
During the 90-minute symposium, taking place Wednesday, October 18, 5:00-6:30 pm, Dr. Collins and Mr. Gates will address these topics and selected audience questions in an informal, conversational format.
This event will be open to all ASHG scientific registrants, so if you haven’t registered yet, now’s a great time to do so. More details on the symposium, including security considerations and how to submit your questions, will be made available as the date approaches.
We look forward to seeing you in Orlando.
Nancy Cox, PhD, ASHG President, directs the Vanderbilt Genetics Institute and is the Mary Phillips Edmonds Gray Professor of Genetics. She is also the Director of and a Professor of Medicine in the Vanderbilt Division of Genetic Medicine. Peter C. Scacheri, PhD, is 2017 Chair of the ASHG Program Committee. He is a Professor in the Department of Genetics and Genome Sciences at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, and has been a member of ASHG since 2006.
AJHG: What prompted you to start working on this project?
Authors: Despite the many ways of annotating the noncoding genome, a fundamental question will always be what the consequences are when you make direct changes to genomic sequence. Now that CRISPR allows us to do exactly that with unprecedented ease, we wanted to leverage its power to look for distal regulatory elements that affect gene expression. We reasoned such elements are likely a reason why methods such as exome sequencing fail in a minority of patients, and we were curious if we could find any such elements for a well-studied Mendelian disease gene
AJHG: What about this paper/project most excites you?
Authors: We engineered literally thousands of large genomic deletions in a single experiment. Function aside, that was just a cool thing to have succeeded in. What we learned from the assay was interesting as well, in that there wasn’t a single element in our screen outside of the exons that was essential for the gene’s function. It’s important to validate CRISPR screens like this to make sure the programmed deletions are truly what’s responsible for the effect on the cells – in this case, drug resistance. When we did this, the results came to life even more. We observed with high resolution that even deletions that go very near the transcriptional start site of HPRT1 are still tolerated by the cells.
AJHG: Thinking about the bigger picture, what implications do you see from this work for the larger human genetics community?
Authors: We only interrogated a single locus, so any biological claims from this paper must be limited to HPRT1’s expression in this cell type. However, we hope our method will be applied more broadly to understand the role of noncoding sequence in other disease genes’ expression, too – essentially scanning vast amounts of the genome in a multilayered way for functional importance. The benefits of generating more datasets like this are twofold to the human genetics community: 1) we’ll better understand noncoding mutations’ role in affecting any one disease gene, and 2) after enough loci are interrogated, we’ll know more about how the role of noncoding sequences varies across gene categories, cell types, and disorders.
AJHG: What advice do you have for trainees/young scientists?
Authors: Where you can, design experiments where the result is going to be interesting no matter which way it turns out. In this case, we asked a question and got what was effectively a negative result. Importantly, a negative result is not at all the same as a failed experiment (i.e. a technical failure). Obviously, we would have been delighted to discover critical distal regulatory elements, but apparently there aren’t any across the region that we scanned. But that’s still really interesting! Perhaps more so because it’s not what we expected. Too often, technically sound, negative results go unreported, and that doesn’t do anyone a service.
AJHG: And for fun, tell us something about your life outside of the lab.
Authors: Outside of the lab, Molly hangs out with her baby nephew, listens to Motown music, and helps organize the local and national Communication Science Conventions. Greg enjoys biking around the city, exploring nature, and watching sports. Jay’s life these days consists solely of chasing after his three kids, chasing after his lab, and absorbing Game of Thrones theories. A highlight for the whole Shendure lab is the annual retreat to the Cascade mountains, which provide the perfect backdrop for re-energizing, brainstorming the next wave of experiments to try, and having fun with colleagues.
Jay Shendure, MD/PhD, is a Professor of Genome Sciences and Principal Investigator at the University of Washington. A member of ASHG since 2009, he received the Society’s Curt Stern Award in 2012 and currently serves on its Awards Committee. Molly Gasperini, Graduate Student (Genome Sciences) and 2016 Epstein Trainee Award recipient, and Greg Findlay, MD/PhD Student (Genome Sciences), belong to the Shendure Lab.
Posted by: Derek Scholes, PhD, ASHG Director of Science Policy
I am delighted to announce that ASHG’s statement on germline genome editing was published today in The American Journal of Human Genetics. This statement, written by a workgroup co-led by Kelly Ormond and Doug Mortlock and approved by ASHG’s Board of Directors, gives the Society’s perspective on the use of CRISPR/Cas9 or other similar tools to alter the genome of an embryo or germ cell. Importantly, it incorporates feedback that members provided when the workgroup solicited their perspectives early in the writing of the statement.
The statement makes three main points:
Concurring with many in the scientific community who have considered this question, it declares that it would be inappropriate at the present to carry out germline genome editing culminating in pregnancy, given the many questions about its safety and the associated ethical issues.
However, it says we should allow in vitro germline genome editing as part of research to explore possible future clinical applications, and there should be no prohibition on the use of public funds for this research.
That said, it makes clear that the Society believes germline genome editing should only ever be performed in humans if several important criteria are met. There needs to be not only a compelling medical reason, backed up by a strong evidence base, but also the ethical and policy questions need to have been addressed through a public process.
ASHG did not reach these conclusions alone. Rather, the workgroup that wrote the statement included representatives from the Association of Genetic Nurses and Counsellors, the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, the International Genetic Epidemiology Society, and the National Society of Genetic Counselors. These organizations endorsed the final statement, as did the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Asia Pacific Society of Human Genetics, the British Society for Genetic Medicine, the Human Genetics Society of Australasia, the Professional Society of Genetic Counselors in Asia, and the Southern African Society for Human Genetics. The statement is all the more powerful for enjoying support from such major organizations from across five continents, that represent a variety of scientific and clinical perspectives.
Posted By: Timothy J. Hohman, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Vanderbilt Memory & Alzheimer’s Center
I just returned from the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference (AAIC) in London. AAIC always covers an amazing breadth of the most recent advances in research and clinical care for Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), and this year placed a particular emphasis on biomarkers. More specifically, the focus was on how we can integrate the growing availability of in vivo biomarkers of AD neuropathology into diagnostic criteria for research, and into screening procedures for clinical trials.
The Potential of Biomarkers
Philip Scheltens, MD, PhD, from the VU University Medical Center in the Netherlands kicked off the meeting with an impassioned lecture on the present landscape of biomarkers in AD, and the future potential of biomarkers in screening, diagnosis, targeted treatments, and disease prevention. AD is characterized by two primary neuropathologies: extracellular plaques composed of the amyloid-β protein and neurofibrillary tangles composed of hyper-phosphorylated tau. Over the past ten years, there has been a growing emphasis on measuring these proteinopathies in vivo, including the development of positron emission tomography tracers for amyloid and tau, and the development of assays to measure these proteins in cerebrospinal fluid. In 2011, the National Institute on Aging and the Alzheimer’s Association convened four work groups to develop new research criteria for diagnosis that integrated biomarkers of amyloid deposition into the clinical criteria for dementia. This year’s conversations focused on taking steps towards diagnosis and screening that relied solely on biomarkers.
Dr. Schelten’s emphasis on the future of biomarkers set up a somewhat heated panel presentation laying out a new NIA-AA research framework to investigate Alzheimer’s disease. Led by Clifford Jack, MD, the proposed framework would place a greater emphasis on biomarkers of the two primary proteinopathies, while also emphasizing the measurement and characterization of neurodegeneration. The panel has provided the opportunity for the community to give feedback directly to the workgroup as they continue to refine the proposed framework. Certainly, this will be a critical issue in AD research in the coming year and has important implications for clinical trials, study design, and (eventually) clinical care.
Functional Pathways, GWAS Findings, and AD
This is a genetics blog, though, so let’s get into the genetics! The primary keynote session on the genetics of AD was given by Julie Williams, PhD, from Cardiff University. Dr. Williams provided an overview of where we currently stand in unraveling the genetic architecture of the disease, and called for an increased emphasis on uncovering functional pathways that underlie the known risk loci. Dr. Williams argued the innate immunity and inflammation are fundamental pathways in AD pathogenesis, and that the causal pathways of sporadic AD may be fundamentally distinct from familial forms that operate strictly through an amyloid pathway.
Research presented throughout the conference re-emphasized the importance of innate immunity, including new risk loci in common variant and rare variant analyses completed by the Alzheimer’s Disease Genetics Consortium that implicated innate immune pathways (e.g., LILRA5). Additionally, many of the functional genomic approaches emphasized the importance of macrophage and monocyte expression in predicting AD, including 14 genes implicated in a genetically regulated transcriptomic analysis by Towfique Raj, PhD, from the Icahn School of Medicine.
Given the growing emphasis on biomarkers throughout the field of AD, it was also encouraging to see substantial growth in the size of endophenotype analyses, including a GWAS of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers of AD by Yuetiva Deming, PhD, analyzing data from over 3,000 individuals. Simon Lovestone, PhD, gave an additional “big data” plenary lecture in which he laid out how large-scale European collaborations integrating electronic medical record data and other big data resources will change the way research is completed. He called on #DataParasites (those who perform secondary analyses on existing datasets) to make use of rich data resources to identify new treatment targets and #DataPhilanthropists (data providers) to continue to step up and provide open access to collected data. Large scale data collection, data sharing, and secondary data analysis are becoming central components of AD research.
Varied Approaches to #EndALZ
There were many other areas of focus: from advances in neuroimaging and large-scale omics, to a growing emphasis on sex differences, racial disparities, and pathways of resilience, and a growing acceptance of the heterogeneity in the neuropathological presentation of the disease. If you are interested in AD and want to learn more from a variety of perspectives, this is a fantastic conference to attend. The field of AD is necessarily interdisciplinary and this conference is a fantastic representation of that diversity. Multiple perspectives, approaches, and treatment pathways will be needed to beat this devastating disease. After another year and another great conference, I’m hopeful and inspired to keep working to #EndALZ. Join us!
Timothy J. Hohman, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Neurology at the Vanderbilt Memory & Alzheimer’s Center. He has been part of the ASHG community since 2013.
This year, ASHG and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) are offering a newly structured travel award for underrepresented* trainees who are full-time undergraduate, graduate, medical students, and postdoctoral/clinical fellows who attend ASHG 2017.
What makes this travel award unique is its goal is to provide engaged and structured mentoring for trainees attending the meeting. This is fostered by assigning each awardee a peer mentor based on common interest.
The mentorship process starts before ASHG 2017 and continues during and after the meeting. Peer mentors will begin communicating with awardees before the meeting through a series of activities, including helping awardees choose events and sessions to attend and establishing their career interests to customize the meeting experience.
During the meeting, awardees will practice their presentations with their peer mentors and receive feedback. Peer mentors will also help awardees identify Exhibit Hall booths to visit based on their career interests, attend a social event together to practice networking, view poster and platform presentations to learn how to ask questions, and critique presentations. After the meeting, peer mentors will follow up with awardees by continuing to provide professional development support.
Peer mentors are selected based on their experience attending the meeting and their proximity in career development to the trainee awardee, which makes the relationship more relaxed. We have selected a diverse group of mentors spanning academia, industry, medicine, science education, and non-profits.
Awardees are required to attend specific trainee events and visit the Career Center to advance their networking skills and professional development. Here are the required events:
Wednesday, October 18
Diversity Breakfast, 7:15-8:45am
Choose 1 of the following concurrent sessions:
Trainee Professional Development Program (Academic Career Panel), 12:30-1:45pm, OR
Trainee-Mentor Luncheon (1), 12:30-1:45pm
Thursday, October 19
Choose 1 of the following concurrent sessions:
Trainee Professional Development Program (Passion Won’t Pay the Bills: Planning for a Successful Scientific Career), 12:30-1:45pm, OR
Trainee-Mentor Luncheon (2), 12:30-1:45pm
Friday, October 20
Choose 1 of the following concurrent sessions
Trainee Professional Development Program (Industry Career Panel), 1-2:15pm, OR
Mock NIH Study Section Workshop, 1-2:15pm
The travel award provides up to $1,850 in reimbursable funds for registration and travel. Applicants are required to submit and present (poster/oral) at ASHG 2017. Eligible applicants must be United States citizens or permanent residents with legal status. Trainees can be from minority institutions and historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) or underrepresented trainees from majority institutions. Preference for the award is given to ASHG members.
* For the purpose of meeting the goals and objectives specified by the FASEB Diversity Resources Program, individuals from groups underrepresented in the biomedical, clinical, and behavioral sciences include:
Individuals from racial and ethnic groups shown to be underrepresented in biomedical research, including Blacks or African Americans, Hispanics or Latinos, American Indians (who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment) or Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and other U.S. Pacific Islanders (Guam, American Samoa);
Individuals with disabilities, defined as those with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; and
Individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds [usually undergraduate students], defined as those from a family with an annual income below established low-income thresholds and those who come from an educational environment that has inhibited the individual from obtaining the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to develop and participate in a research career.
Posted By: Pauline Minhinnett, Director of Meetings; and Emily Greene, Meetings Program Coordinator
Earlier this week, the ASHG Program Committee gathered in Bethesda, Maryland, to create and assemble the ASHG 2017 scientific program. Having reviewed more than 3,100 submitted abstracts, with help from more than 100 reviewers, the Committee met in person to bring the highest-scoring work together into themed sessions for the meeting’s three Featured Plenary Abstract Sessions and five Platform Sessions. They used early registration data to assign sessions to rooms, ordered presentations within each session to tell a coherent story, and selected Reviewers’ Choice Abstracts among top-scoring posters. They also discussed educational events at the meeting, trainee opportunities, and abstracts of interest to press.
In the coming weeks, the Committee will select and confirm moderators, make any necessary adjustments, and continue planning Tuesday’s Poster Talks session. Those who submitted abstracts should receive their program assignment in mid-August.