5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Considerations for Cardiovascular Genetic and Genomic Research With Marginalized Racial and Ethnic Groups and Indigenous Peoples: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

      , , , , , , , , on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and Council on Clinical Cardiology
      Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
      Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Historically marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples are burdened by significant health inequities that are compounded by their underrepresentation in genetic and genomic research. Of all genome-wide association study participants, ≈79% are of European descent, despite this group constituting only 16% of the global population. For underrepresented populations, polygenic risk scores derived from these studies are less accurate in predicting disease phenotypes, novel population-specific genetic variations may be misclassified as potentially pathogenic, and there is a lack of understanding of how different populations metabolize drugs. Although inclusion of marginalized racial and ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples in genetic and genomic research is crucial, scientific studies must be guided by ethical principles of respect, honesty, justice, reciprocity, and care for individuals and communities. Special considerations are needed to support research that benefits the scientific community as well as Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups. Before a project begins, collaboration with community leaders and agencies can lead to successful implementation of the study. Throughout the study, consideration must be given to issues such as implications of informed consent for individuals and communities, dissemination of findings through scientific and community avenues, and implications of community identity for data governance and sharing. Attention to these issues is critical, given historical harms in biomedical research that marginalized groups and Indigenous peoples have suffered. Conducting genetic and genomic research in partnership with Indigenous peoples and marginalized groups guided by ethical principles provides a pathway for scientific advances that will enhance prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease for everyone.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

          The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage

            Current genome-editing technologies introduce double-stranded (ds) DNA breaks at a target locus as the first step to gene correction. 1,2 Although most genetic diseases arise from point mutations, current approaches to point mutation correction are inefficient and typically induce an abundance of random insertions and deletions (indels) at the target locus from the cellular response to dsDNA breaks. 1,2 Here we report the development of base editing, a new approach to genome editing that enables the direct, irreversible conversion of one target DNA base into another in a programmable manner, without requiring dsDNA backbone cleavage or a donor template. We engineered fusions of CRISPR/Cas9 and a cytidine deaminase enzyme that retain the ability to be programmed with a guide RNA, do not induce dsDNA breaks, and mediate the direct conversion of cytidine to uridine, thereby effecting a C→T (or G→A) substitution. The resulting “base editors” convert cytidines within a window of approximately five nucleotides (nt), and can efficiently correct a variety of point mutations relevant to human disease. In four transformed human and murine cell lines, second- and third-generation base editors that fuse uracil glycosylase inhibitor (UGI), and that use a Cas9 nickase targeting the non-edited strand, manipulate the cellular DNA repair response to favor desired base-editing outcomes, resulting in permanent correction of ∼15-75% of total cellular DNA with minimal (typically ≤ 1%) indel formation. Base editing expands the scope and efficiency of genome editing of point mutations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Clinical use of current polygenic risk scores may exacerbate health disparities

              Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are poised to improve biomedical outcomes via precision medicine. However, the major ethical and scientific challenge surrounding clinical implementation of PRS is that those available today are several times more accurate in individuals of European ancestry than other ancestries. This disparity is an inescapable consequence of Eurocentric biases in genome-wide association studies, thus highlighting that-unlike clinical biomarkers and prescription drugs, which may individually work better in some populations but do not ubiquitously perform far better in European populations-clinical uses of PRS today would systematically afford greater improvement for European-descent populations. Early diversifying efforts show promise in leveling this vast imbalance, even when non-European sample sizes are considerably smaller than the largest studies to date. To realize the full and equitable potential of PRS, greater diversity must be prioritized in genetic studies, and summary statistics must be publically disseminated to ensure that health disparities are not increased for those individuals already most underserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
                Circ: Genomic and Precision Medicine
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                2574-8300
                July 26 2021
                Article
                10.1161/HCG.0000000000000084
                34304578
                25024752-b49b-43e1-a92a-68399d5e20eb
                © 2021
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article