The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources.

PURPOSE: Several groups and resources provide information that pertains to the validity of gene-disease relationships used in genomic medicine and research; however, universal standards and terminologies to define the evidence base for the role of a gene in disease and a single harmonized resource were lacking. To tackle this issue, the Gene Curation Coalition (GenCC) was formed. METHODS: The GenCC drafted harmonized definitions for differing levels of gene-disease validity on the basis of existing resources, and performed a modified Delphi survey with 3 rounds to narrow the list of terms. The GenCC also developed a unified database to display curated gene-disease validity assertions from its members. RESULTS: On the basis of 241 survey responses from the genetics community, a consensus term set was chosen for grading gene-disease validity and database submissions. As of December 2021, the database contained 15,241 gene-disease assertions on 4569 unique genes from 12 submitters. When comparing submissions to the database from distinct sources, conflicts in assertions of gene-disease validity ranged from 5.3% to 13.4%. CONCLUSION: Terminology standardization, sharing of gene-disease validity classifications, and resolution of curation conflicts will facilitate collaborations across international curation efforts and in turn, improve consistency in genetic testing and variant interpretation.

Scaling national and international improvement in virtual gene panel curation via a collaborative approach to discordance resolution.

Clinical validity assessments of gene-disease associations underpin analysis and reporting in diagnostic genomics, and yet wide variability exists in practice, particularly in use of these assessments for virtual gene panel design and maintenance. Harmonization efforts are hampered by the lack of agreed terminology, agreed gene curation standards, and platforms that can be used to identify and resolve discrepancies at scale. We undertook a systematic comparison of the content of 80 virtual gene panels used in two healthcare systems by multiple diagnostic providers in the United Kingdom and Australia. The process was enabled by a shared curation platform, PanelApp, and resulted in the identification and review of 2,144 discordant gene ratings, demonstrating the utility of sharing structured gene-disease validity assessments and collaborative discordance resolution in establishing national and international consensus.