基因组命名法在不同利益相关者生态系统中的标准化:进化和挑战。

IF 7.1 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Laura K Conlin, Melissa J Landrum, Robert R Freimuth, Birgit Funke
{"title":"基因组命名法在不同利益相关者生态系统中的标准化:进化和挑战。","authors":"Laura K Conlin, Melissa J Landrum, Robert R Freimuth, Birgit Funke","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvae195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic testing has traditionally been divided into molecular genetics and cytogenetics, originally driven by the use of different assays and their associated limitations. Cytogenetic technologies such as karyotyping, fluorescent in situ hybridization or chromosomal microarrays are used to detect large \"megabase level\" copy number variants and other structural variants such as inversions or translocations. In contrast, molecular methodologies are heavily biased toward subgenic \"small variants\" such as single nucleotide variants, insertions/deletions, and targeted detection of intragenic, exon level deletions or duplications. The boundaries between these approaches are now increasingly blurred as next-generation sequencing technologies and their use for genome-wide analysis are used by both disciplines, therefore eliminating the historic and somewhat artificial separation driven by variant type.</p><p><strong>Content: </strong>This review discusses the history of genomic nomenclature across both fields, summarizes implementation challenges for the clinical genetics community, and identifies key considerations for enabling a seamless connection of the stakeholders that consume variant descriptions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Standardization is naturally a lengthy and complex process that requires consensus building between different stakeholders. Developing a standard that not only fits the multitude of needs across the entities that consume genetic variant information but also works equally well for all genetic variant types is an ambitious goal that calls for revisiting this vision.</p>","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":"71 1","pages":"45-53"},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695870/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Standardization of Genomic Nomenclature across a Diverse Ecosystem of Stakeholders: Evolution and Challenges.\",\"authors\":\"Laura K Conlin, Melissa J Landrum, Robert R Freimuth, Birgit Funke\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/clinchem/hvae195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic testing has traditionally been divided into molecular genetics and cytogenetics, originally driven by the use of different assays and their associated limitations. Cytogenetic technologies such as karyotyping, fluorescent in situ hybridization or chromosomal microarrays are used to detect large \\\"megabase level\\\" copy number variants and other structural variants such as inversions or translocations. In contrast, molecular methodologies are heavily biased toward subgenic \\\"small variants\\\" such as single nucleotide variants, insertions/deletions, and targeted detection of intragenic, exon level deletions or duplications. The boundaries between these approaches are now increasingly blurred as next-generation sequencing technologies and their use for genome-wide analysis are used by both disciplines, therefore eliminating the historic and somewhat artificial separation driven by variant type.</p><p><strong>Content: </strong>This review discusses the history of genomic nomenclature across both fields, summarizes implementation challenges for the clinical genetics community, and identifies key considerations for enabling a seamless connection of the stakeholders that consume variant descriptions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Standardization is naturally a lengthy and complex process that requires consensus building between different stakeholders. Developing a standard that not only fits the multitude of needs across the entities that consume genetic variant information but also works equally well for all genetic variant types is an ambitious goal that calls for revisiting this vision.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10690,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"45-53\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11695870/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical chemistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae195\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae195","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:基因检测传统上分为分子遗传学和细胞遗传学,最初是由于使用不同的测定方法及其相关的局限性。细胞遗传学技术,如核型、荧光原位杂交或染色体微阵列被用于检测大的“兆基水平”拷贝数变异和其他结构变异,如倒置或易位。相比之下,分子方法严重偏向于亚基因“小变异”,如单核苷酸变异、插入/缺失以及基因内、外显子水平缺失或重复的靶向检测。随着下一代测序技术及其用于全基因组分析的应用被两个学科所使用,这些方法之间的界限现在越来越模糊,因此消除了由变异类型驱动的历史性的和有些人为的分离。内容:本综述讨论了基因组命名法在这两个领域的历史,总结了临床遗传学社区的实施挑战,并确定了实现使用变异描述的利益相关者之间无缝连接的关键考虑因素。摘要:标准化自然是一个漫长而复杂的过程,需要在不同的利益相关者之间建立共识。开发一种标准,不仅满足使用遗传变异信息的实体的众多需求,而且同样适用于所有遗传变异类型,这是一个雄心勃勃的目标,需要重新审视这一愿景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Standardization of Genomic Nomenclature across a Diverse Ecosystem of Stakeholders: Evolution and Challenges.

Background: Genetic testing has traditionally been divided into molecular genetics and cytogenetics, originally driven by the use of different assays and their associated limitations. Cytogenetic technologies such as karyotyping, fluorescent in situ hybridization or chromosomal microarrays are used to detect large "megabase level" copy number variants and other structural variants such as inversions or translocations. In contrast, molecular methodologies are heavily biased toward subgenic "small variants" such as single nucleotide variants, insertions/deletions, and targeted detection of intragenic, exon level deletions or duplications. The boundaries between these approaches are now increasingly blurred as next-generation sequencing technologies and their use for genome-wide analysis are used by both disciplines, therefore eliminating the historic and somewhat artificial separation driven by variant type.

Content: This review discusses the history of genomic nomenclature across both fields, summarizes implementation challenges for the clinical genetics community, and identifies key considerations for enabling a seamless connection of the stakeholders that consume variant descriptions.

Summary: Standardization is naturally a lengthy and complex process that requires consensus building between different stakeholders. Developing a standard that not only fits the multitude of needs across the entities that consume genetic variant information but also works equally well for all genetic variant types is an ambitious goal that calls for revisiting this vision.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry
Clinical chemistry 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
4.30%
发文量
212
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM). The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics. In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology. The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信