Abstract
BACKGROUND Accurate penetrance of monogenic disorders is often unknown due to a phenotype-first approach to genetic testing. Here, we use a genotype-first approach in four large cohorts with different ascertainment contexts to accurately estimate penetrance of the three commonest causes of monogenic diabetes, Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young (MODY). We contrast HNF1A-MODY / HNF4A-MODY which causes an age-related progressive diabetes and GCK-MODY, which causes life-long mild hyperglycaemia.
METHODS We analysed clinical and genetic sequencing data from four different cohorts: 1742 probands referred for clinical MODY testing; 2194 family members of the MODY probands; 132,194 individuals from an American hospital-based cohort; and 198,748 individuals from a UK population-based cohort.
RESULTS Age-related penetrance of diabetes for pathogenic variants in HNF1A and HNF4A was substantially lower in the clinically unselected cohorts compared to clinically referred probands (ranging from 32% to 98% at age 40yrs for HNF1A, and 21% to 99% for HNF4A). The background rate of diabetes, but not clinical features or variant type, explained the reduced penetrance in the unselected cohorts. In contrast, penetrance of mild hyperglycaemia for pathogenic GCK variants was similarly high across cohorts (ranging from 89 to 97%) despite substantial variation in the background rates of diabetes.
CONCLUSIONS Ascertainment context is crucial when interpreting the consequences of monogenic variants for age-related variably penetrant disorders. This finding has important implications for opportunistic screening during genomic testing.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We thank the Geisinger-Regeneron DiscovEHR Collaboration for making the genotype data and phenotype available for this project. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource. This work was carried out under UK Biobank project number 49847. The current work is funded by Diabetes UK (19/0005994) and MRC (grant no MR/T00200X/1). KAP is funded by Wellcome Trust (219606/Z/19/Z) and ATH is supported by Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator award (WT098395/Z/12/Z). TWL is supported by a lectureship funded by Research England Expanding Excellence in England (E3) fund. The work is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Facility, Exeter, UK. The Wellcome Trust, MRC and NIHR had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Wellcome Trust, Department of Health, NHS or NIHR.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was reviewed by the Geisinger Institutional Review Board and determined as not including human subject research as defined in 45CFR46.102(f) in written consent (Study #2016-0269). The UK Biobank resource was approved by the UK Biobank Research Ethics Committee and all participants provided written informed consent to participate. Informed consent was obtained from the Exeter probands or their parents/guardians and the study was approved by the North Wales ethics committee.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data for this study are included in the main text of the manuscript or the supplementary appendix.
