| Date | Panel | Item | Activity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v3.43 | PLD1 |
Jesse Hayesmoore changed review comment from: On the basis of functional data described in PMIDs: 27799408 and 33645542, PLD1 certainly seems to be a plausible functional candidate for causality of cardiac valvular defects. The main paper linking this gene with congenital heart disease / cardiomyopathy is Lahrouchi et al. (2021; PMID: 33645542; note this also includes the same 2 cases as described in Ta-Shma et al. 2017 PMID: 27799408). The paper presents 19 families with severe fetal- / neonatal-onset congenital heart (mainly valvular) defects and 2 with cardiomyopathy where affected babies were homozygous or compound heterozygous for PLD1 variants. The paper also provides some functional analysis of missense variants detected, showing that many but not all of them result significant loss of PLD1 function. Unfortunately, the paper does not include a LOD score, and there is very little cosegregation data presented for any of the variants. In addition, 4 of the 31 variants they promote as pathogenic for autosomal recessive disease are detected in multiple homozygous individuals on gnomAD, which I think provides significant evidence that they might not be pathogenic for a severe autosomal recessive condition. Most notably, 1 of the variants (i.e. I668F), which the authors promote as a pathogenic Ashkenazi Jewish founder variant (but which is also fairly frequent in non-Finnish Europeans) is detected in 7 homozygotes on gnomAD and was found to have ~80% loss of PLD1 function in their assay. This suggests that significant loss of function of this gene (i.e. down to 20%) might not be causative of a severe recessive condition (that is not to say that total or near total loss of function is not causative). Three other of the variants promoted as pathogenic in this article are also detected in homozygotes on gnomAD. I think one of the major pieces of missing information required to make a full assessment of this gene’s linkage to disease is that is unknown how frequent biallelic (apparently loss of function) variant genotypes are in the general population or in healthy control individuals. Although homozygosity for any one variant can be determined from gnomAD, compound heterozygosity (which is likely to represent the vast majority of biallelic genotypes) cannot be assessed on gnomAD, and I can find no record in the literature of this being assessed in a normal control cohort. Without this information, we cannot know whether biallelic PLD1 genotypes are specific to babies with this severe phenotype. Without knowing this, and in the absence of any significant cosegregation data for any variant, there is no reasonable basis upon which one can conclude that this is a valid autosomal recessive gene for the phenotype. Without such validation, PVS1 cannot be applied for any apparent loss of function variant. Given this, and the general lack of cosegregation data for any one variant, I do not believe there is any PLD1 variant reported in the literature that could be classified as anything but uncertain significance (if not benign or likely benign) on the basis of current variant classification guidelines. Also, there are only two cases of biallelic variants in neonates where the primary phenotype is cardiomyopathy, and of these only one was dilated cardiomyopathy (the other was histiocytoid cardiomyopathy). Hence, the evidence linking this gene to cardiomyopathy is even weaker than it is for valvular defects. I, therefore, do not feel there is sufficient evidence to justify this gene being tested as part of the R135 paediatric cardiomyopathy gene panel. Other papers (e.g. PMIDs: 33142350, 35380090, 36923242, 37770978) reporting a link between PLD1 genotypes and early onset cardiac disease have been published. However, again, I do not think there is sufficient data in the articles to allow any of the variants detected to be confidently classified as anything but VUS according to current variant classification guidelines. ; to: On the basis of functional data described in PMIDs: 27799408 and 33645542, PLD1 certainly seems to be a plausible functional candidate for causality of cardiac valvular defects. The main paper linking this gene with congenital heart disease / cardiomyopathy is Lahrouchi et al. (2021; PMID: 33645542; note this also includes the same 2 cases as described in Ta-Shma et al. 2017 PMID: 27799408). The paper presents 19 families with severe fetal- / neonatal-onset congenital heart (mainly valvular) defects and 2 with cardiomyopathy where affected babies were homozygous or compound heterozygous for PLD1 variants. The paper also provides some functional analysis of missense variants detected, showing that many but not all of them result significant loss of PLD1 function. Unfortunately, the paper does not include a LOD score, and there is very little cosegregation data presented for any of the variants. In addition, 4 of the 31 variants they promote as pathogenic for autosomal recessive disease are detected in multiple homozygous individuals on gnomAD, which I think provides significant evidence that they might not be pathogenic for a severe autosomal recessive condition. Most notably, 1 of the variants (i.e. I668F), which the authors promote as a pathogenic Ashkenazi Jewish founder variant (but which is also fairly frequent in non-Finnish Europeans) is detected in 7 homozygotes on gnomAD and was found to have ~80% loss of PLD1 function in their assay. This suggests that significant loss of function of this gene (i.e. down to 20%) might not be causative of a severe recessive condition (that is not to say that total or near total loss of function is not causative). Three other of the variants promoted as pathogenic in this article are also detected in homozygotes on gnomAD. I think one of the major pieces of missing information required to make a full assessment of this gene’s linkage to disease is that is unknown how frequent biallelic (apparently loss of function) variant genotypes are in the general population or in healthy control individuals. Although homozygosity for any one variant can be determined from gnomAD, compound heterozygosity (which is likely to represent the vast majority of biallelic genotypes) cannot be assessed on gnomAD, and I can find no record in the literature of this being assessed in a normal control cohort. Without this information, we cannot know whether biallelic PLD1 genotypes are specific to babies with this severe phenotype. Without knowing this, and in the absence of any significant cosegregation data for any variant, there is no reasonable basis upon which one can conclude that this is a valid autosomal recessive gene for the phenotype. Without such validation, PVS1 cannot be applied for any apparent loss of function variant. Given this, and the general lack of cosegregation data for any one variant, I do not believe there is any PLD1 variant reported in the literature that could be classified as anything but uncertain significance (if not benign or likely benign) on the basis of current variant classification guidelines. Also, there are only two cases of biallelic variants in neonates where the primary phenotype is cardiomyopathy, and of these only one was dilated cardiomyopathy (the other was histiocytoid cardiomyopathy). Hence, the evidence linking this gene to cardiomyopathy is even weaker than it is for valvular defects. I, therefore, do not feel there is sufficient evidence to justify this gene being tested as part of the R135 paediatric cardiomyopathy gene panel. Other papers (e.g. PMIDs: 33142350, 35380090, 36923242, 37770978) reporting a link between PLD1 genotypes and early onset cardiac disease (not cardiomyopathy) have been published. However, again, I do not think there is sufficient data in the articles to allow any of the variants detected to be confidently classified as anything but VUS according to current variant classification guidelines. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v3.43 | PLD1 |
Jesse Hayesmoore changed review comment from: On the basis of functional data described in PMIDs: 27799408 and 33645542, PLD1 certainly seems to be a plausible functional candidate for causality of cardiac valvular defects. The main paper linking this gene with congenital heart disease / cardiomyopathy is Lahrouchi et al. (2021; PMID: 33645542; note this also includes the same 2 cases as described in Ta-Shma et al. 2017 PMID: 27799408). The paper presents 19 families with severe fetal- / neonatal-onset congenital heart (mainly valvular) defects and 2 with cardiomyopathy where affected babies were homozygous or compound heterozygous for PLD1 variants. The paper also provides some functional analysis of missense variants detected, showing that many but not all of them result significant loss of PLD1 function. Unfortunately, the paper does not include a LOD score, and there is very little cosegregation data presented for any of the variants. In addition, 4 of the 31 variants they promote as pathogenic for autosomal recessive disease are detected in multiple homozygous individuals on gnomAD, which I think provides significant evidence that they might not be pathogenic for a severe autosomal recessive condition. Most notably, 1 of the variants (i.e. I668F), which the authors promote as a pathogenic Ashkenazi Jewish founder variant (but which is also fairly frequent in non-Finnish Europeans) is detected in 7 homozygotes on gnomAD and was found to have ~80% loss of PLD1 function in their assay. This suggests that significant loss of function of this gene (i.e. down to 20%) might not be causative of a severe recessive condition (that is not to say that total or near total loss of function is not causative). Three other of the variants promoted as pathogenic in this article are also detected in homozygotes on gnomAD. I think one of the major pieces of missing information required to make a full assessment of this gene’s linkage to disease is that is unknown how frequent biallelic (apparently loss of function) variant genotypes are in the general population or in healthy control individuals. Although homozygosity for any one variant can be determined from gnomAD, compound heterozygosity (which is likely to represent the vast majority of biallelic genotypes) cannot be assessed on gnomAD, and I can find no record in the literature of this being assessed in a normal control cohort. Without this information, we cannot know whether biallelic PLD1 genotypes are specific to babies with this severe phenotype. Without knowing this, and in the absence of any significant cosegregation data for any variant, there is no reasonable basis upon which one can conclude that this is a valid autosomal recessive gene for the phenotype. Without such validation, PVS1 cannot be applied for any apparent loss of function variant. Given this, and the general lack of cosegregation data for any one variant, I do not believe there is any PLD1 variant reported in the literature that could be classified as anything but uncertain significance (if not benign or likely benign). Also, there are only two cases of biallelic variants in neonates where the primary phenotype is cardiomyopathy, and of these only one was dilated cardiomyopathy (the other was histiocytoid cardiomyopathy). Hence, the evidence linking this gene to cardiomyopathy is even weaker than it is for valvular defects. I, therefore, do not feel there is sufficient evidence to justify this gene being tested as part of the R135 paediatric cardiomyopathy gene panel.; to: On the basis of functional data described in PMIDs: 27799408 and 33645542, PLD1 certainly seems to be a plausible functional candidate for causality of cardiac valvular defects. The main paper linking this gene with congenital heart disease / cardiomyopathy is Lahrouchi et al. (2021; PMID: 33645542; note this also includes the same 2 cases as described in Ta-Shma et al. 2017 PMID: 27799408). The paper presents 19 families with severe fetal- / neonatal-onset congenital heart (mainly valvular) defects and 2 with cardiomyopathy where affected babies were homozygous or compound heterozygous for PLD1 variants. The paper also provides some functional analysis of missense variants detected, showing that many but not all of them result significant loss of PLD1 function. Unfortunately, the paper does not include a LOD score, and there is very little cosegregation data presented for any of the variants. In addition, 4 of the 31 variants they promote as pathogenic for autosomal recessive disease are detected in multiple homozygous individuals on gnomAD, which I think provides significant evidence that they might not be pathogenic for a severe autosomal recessive condition. Most notably, 1 of the variants (i.e. I668F), which the authors promote as a pathogenic Ashkenazi Jewish founder variant (but which is also fairly frequent in non-Finnish Europeans) is detected in 7 homozygotes on gnomAD and was found to have ~80% loss of PLD1 function in their assay. This suggests that significant loss of function of this gene (i.e. down to 20%) might not be causative of a severe recessive condition (that is not to say that total or near total loss of function is not causative). Three other of the variants promoted as pathogenic in this article are also detected in homozygotes on gnomAD. I think one of the major pieces of missing information required to make a full assessment of this gene’s linkage to disease is that is unknown how frequent biallelic (apparently loss of function) variant genotypes are in the general population or in healthy control individuals. Although homozygosity for any one variant can be determined from gnomAD, compound heterozygosity (which is likely to represent the vast majority of biallelic genotypes) cannot be assessed on gnomAD, and I can find no record in the literature of this being assessed in a normal control cohort. Without this information, we cannot know whether biallelic PLD1 genotypes are specific to babies with this severe phenotype. Without knowing this, and in the absence of any significant cosegregation data for any variant, there is no reasonable basis upon which one can conclude that this is a valid autosomal recessive gene for the phenotype. Without such validation, PVS1 cannot be applied for any apparent loss of function variant. Given this, and the general lack of cosegregation data for any one variant, I do not believe there is any PLD1 variant reported in the literature that could be classified as anything but uncertain significance (if not benign or likely benign) on the basis of current variant classification guidelines. Also, there are only two cases of biallelic variants in neonates where the primary phenotype is cardiomyopathy, and of these only one was dilated cardiomyopathy (the other was histiocytoid cardiomyopathy). Hence, the evidence linking this gene to cardiomyopathy is even weaker than it is for valvular defects. I, therefore, do not feel there is sufficient evidence to justify this gene being tested as part of the R135 paediatric cardiomyopathy gene panel. Other papers (e.g. PMIDs: 33142350, 35380090, 36923242, 37770978) reporting a link between PLD1 genotypes and early onset cardiac disease have been published. However, again, I do not think there is sufficient data in the articles to allow any of the variants detected to be confidently classified as anything but VUS according to current variant classification guidelines. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v3.43 | PLD1 | Jesse Hayesmoore reviewed gene: PLD1: Rating: RED; Mode of pathogenicity: Other; Publications: PMIDs: 27799408 and 33645542; Phenotypes: Paediatric cardiomyopathy, cardiac valvular defects; Mode of inheritance: BIALLELIC, autosomal or pseudoautosomal; Current diagnostic: yes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.65 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong Tag Q2_21_rating was removed from gene: PLD1. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.65 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong commented on gene: PLD1: The rating of this gene has been updated following NHS Genomic Medicine Service approval. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.64 | PLD1 |
Ivone Leong Source Expert Review Green was added to PLD1. Rating Changed from Amber List (moderate evidence) to Green List (high evidence) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.28 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong Classified gene: PLD1 as Amber List (moderate evidence) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.28 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong Added comment: Comment on list classification: New gene added by Zornitza Stark (Australian Genomics). This gene is associated with a phenotype in OMIM but not in Gene2Phenotype. There is enough evidence to support a gene-disease association. This gene should be rated Green at the next review. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.28 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong Gene: pld1 has been classified as Amber List (Moderate Evidence). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.27 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong Tag Q2_21_rating tag was added to gene: PLD1. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.27 | PLD1 | Ivone Leong Phenotypes for gene: PLD1 were changed from Cardiac valvular defect, developmental, MIM# 212093; neonatal cardiomyopathy to Cardiac valvular defect, developmental, OMIM:212093; neonatal cardiomyopathy | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Paediatric or syndromic cardiomyopathy v1.19 | PLD1 |
Zornitza Stark gene: PLD1 was added gene: PLD1 was added to Cardiomyopathies - including childhood onset. Sources: Literature Mode of inheritance for gene: PLD1 was set to BIALLELIC, autosomal or pseudoautosomal Publications for gene: PLD1 were set to 27799408; 33645542 Phenotypes for gene: PLD1 were set to Cardiac valvular defect, developmental, MIM# 212093; neonatal cardiomyopathy Review for gene: PLD1 was set to GREEN gene: PLD1 was marked as current diagnostic Added comment: PMID 33645542: 31 individuals from 20 families reported, presenting predominantly with congenital cardiac valve defects and some with neonatal cardiomyopathy. p.I668F is a founder variant among Ashkenazi Jews (allele frequency of ~2%). Sources: Literature |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||