Dataset Information

Evaluating genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnicity in the context of carrier screening.

ABSTRACT: Current professional society guidelines recommend genetic carrier screening be offered on the basis of ethnicity, or when using expanded carrier screening panels, they recommend to compute residual risk based on ethnicity. We investigated the reliability of self-reported ethnicity in 9138 subjects referred to carrier screening. Self-reported ethnicity gathered from test requisition forms and during post-test genetic counseling, and genetic ancestry predicted by a statistical model, were compared for concordance.We identified several discrepancies between the two sources of self-reported ethnicity and genetic ancestry. Only 30.3% of individuals who indicated Mediterranean ancestry during consultation self-reported this on requisition forms. Additionally, the proportion of individuals who reported Southeast Asian but were estimated to have a different genetic ancestry was found to depend on the source of self-report. Finally, individuals who reported Latin American demonstrated a high degree of ancestral admixture. As a result, carrier rates and residual risks provided for patient decision-making are impacted if using self-reported ethnicity.Our analysis highlights the unreliability of ethnicity classification based on patient self-reports. We recommend the routine use of pan-ethnic carrier screening panels in reproductive medicine. Furthermore, the use of an ancestry model would allow better estimation of carrier rates and residual risks.

SUBMITTER: Shraga R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5704547 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnicity in the context of carrier screening.

Shraga Roman R Yarnall Sarah S Elango Sonya S Manoharan Arun A Rodriguez Sally Ann SA Bristow Sara L SL Kumar Neha N Niknazar Mohammad M Hoffman David D Ghadir Shahin S Vassena Rita R Chen Serena H SH Hershlag Avner A Grifo Jamie J Puig Oscar O

BMC genetics 20171128 1

<h4>Background</h4>Current professional society guidelines recommend genetic carrier screening be offered on the basis of ethnicity, or when using expanded carrier screening panels, they recommend to compute residual risk based on ethnicity. We investigated the reliability of self-reported ethnicity in 9138 subjects referred to carrier screening. Self-reported ethnicity gathered from test requisition forms and during post-test genetic counseling, and genetic ancestry predicted by a statistical m ...[more]

PMID: 29179688

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFamily history and African-American race are important risk factors for both prostate cancer (CaP) incidence and aggressiveness. When studying complex diseases such as CaP that have a heritable component, chances of finding true disease susceptibility alleles can be increased by accounting for genetic ancestry within the population investigated. Race, ethnicity and ancestry were studied in a geographically diverse cohort of men with newly diagnosed CaP.MethodsIndividual ancestry (IA) was estimated in the population-based North Carolina and Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project (PCaP), a cohort of 2,106 incident CaP cases (2063 with complete ethnicity information) comprising roughly equal numbers of research subjects reporting as Black/African American (AA) or European American/Caucasian/Caucasian American/White (EA) from North Carolina or Louisiana. Mean genome wide individual ancestry estimates of percent African, European and Asian were obtained and tested for differences by state and ethnicity (Cajun and/or Creole and Hispanic/Latino) using multivariate analysis of variance models. Principal components (PC) were compared to assess differences in genetic composition by self-reported race and ethnicity between and within states.ResultsMean individual ancestries differed by state for self-reporting AA (p = 0.03) and EA (p = 0.001). This geographic difference attenuated for AAs who answered "no" to all ethnicity membership questions (non-ethnic research subjects; p = 0.78) but not EA research subjects, p = 0.002. Mean ancestry estimates of self-identified AA Louisiana research subjects for each ethnic group; Cajun only, Creole only and both Cajun and Creole differed significantly from self-identified non-ethnic AA Louisiana research subjects. These ethnicity differences were not seen in those who self-identified as EA.ConclusionsMean IA differed by race between states, elucidating a potential contributing factor to these differences in AA research participants: self-reported ethnicity. Accurately accounting for genetic admixture in this cohort is essential for future analyses of the genetic and environmental contributions to CaP.

Project description:BackgroundHispanics are known to be an extremely diverse and genetically admixed ethnic group. The lack of methodologies to control for ethnicity and the unknown admixture in complex study populations of Hispanics has left a gap in understanding certain cancer disparity issues. Incidence rates for oral and pharyngeal cancer (OPC) in Puerto Rico are among the highest in the Western Hemisphere. We conducted an epidemiological study to examine risk and protective factors, in addition to possible genetic susceptibility components, for oral cancer and precancer in Puerto Rico.Methodology/principal findingsWe recruited 310 Puerto Rico residents who had been diagnosed with either an incident oral squamous cell carcinoma, oral precancer, or benign oral condition. Participants completed an in-person interview and contributed buccal cells for DNA extraction. ABI Biosystem Taqman™ primer sets were used for genotyping 12 ancestry informative markers (AIMs). Ancestral group estimates were generated using maximum likelihood estimation software (LEADMIX), and additional principal component analysis was carried out to detect population substructures. We used unconditional logistic regression to assess the contribution of ancestry to the risk of being diagnosed with either an oral cancer or precancer while controlling for other potential confounders. The maximum likelihood estimates showed that study participants had a group average ancestry contribution of 69.9% European, 24.5% African, and 5.7% detectable Native American. The African and Indigenous American group estimates were significantly higher than anticipated. Neither self-identified ethnicity nor ancestry markers showed any significant associations with oral cancer/precancer risk in our study.Conclusions/significanceThe application of ancestry informative markers (AIMs), specifically designed for Hispanics, suggests no hidden population substructure is present based on our sampling and provides a viable approach for the evaluation and control of ancestry in future studies involving Hispanic populations.

Dataset Information

Evaluating genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnicity in the context of carrier screening.

Publications

Evaluating genetic ancestry and self-reported ethnicity in the context of carrier screening.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets