Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Genetic Counseling
Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling 4/2014

01-08-2014 | Next Generation Genetic Counseling

Three Clinical Experiences with SNP Array Results Consistent with Parental Incest: A Narrative with Lessons Learned

Authors: Benjamin M. Helm, Katherine Langley, Brooke Spangler, Samantha Vergano

Published in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Issue 4/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Single nucleotide polymorphism microarrays have the ability to reveal parental consanguinity which may or may not be known to healthcare providers. Consanguinity can have significant implications for the health of patients and for individual and family psychosocial well-being. These results often present ethical and legal dilemmas that can have important ramifications. Unexpected consanguinity can be confounding to healthcare professionals who may be unprepared to handle these results or to communicate them to families or other appropriate representatives. There are few published accounts of experiences with consanguinity and SNP arrays. In this paper we discuss three cases where molecular evidence of parental incest was identified by SNP microarray. We hope to further highlight consanguinity as a potential incidental finding, how the cases were handled by the clinical team, and what resources were found to be most helpful. This paper aims to contribute further to professional discourse on incidental findings with genomic technology and how they were addressed clinically. These experiences may provide some guidance on how others can prepare for these findings and help improve practice. As genetic and genomic testing is utilized more by non-genetics providers, we also hope to inform about the importance of engaging with geneticists and genetic counselors when addressing these findings.
Literature
Adams, S. A., Coppinger, J., Saitta, S. C., Stroud, T., Kandamurugu, M., Fan, Z., et al. (2009). Impact of genotype-first diagnosis: the detection of microdeletion and microduplication syndromes with cancer predisposition by aCGH. Genetics in Medicine, 11, 314–322.PubMedCrossRef
Bennett, R. L., Motulsky, A. G., Bittles, A., Hudgins, L., Uhrich, S., Doyle, D. W., et al. (2002). Genetic counseling and screening of consanguineous couples and their offspring: recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11(2), 97–119.PubMedCrossRef
Berg, J. S., Khoury, M. J., & Evans, J. P. (2011). Deploying whole-genome sequencing in clinical practice and public health: meeting the challenge one bin at a time. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 499–504.PubMedCrossRef
Bittles, A. H. (2001). Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clinical Genetics, 60, 89–98.PubMedCrossRef
Boone, P. M., Soens, Z. T., Campbell, I. M., Stankiewicz, P., Cheung, S. W., Patel, A., et al. (2013). Incidental copy-number variants identified by routine genome testing in a clinical population. Genetics in Medicine, 15(1), 45–54.PubMedCrossRef
Bruno, D. L., Ganesamoorthy, D., Schoumans, J., Bankier, A., Coman, D., Delatycki, M., et al. (2009). Detection of cryptic pathogenic copy number variations and constitutional loss of heterozygosity using high resolution SNP microarray analysis in 117 patients referred for cytogenetic analysis and impact on clinical practice. Journal of Medical Genetics, 46, 123–131.PubMedCrossRef
Cassa, C. A., Savage, S. K., Taylor, P. L., Green, R. C., McGuire, A. L., & Mandi, K. D. (2012). Disclosing pathogenic genetic variants to research participants: quantifying an emerging ethical responsibility. Genome Research, 22, 421–428.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Cho, M. K. (2008). Understanding incidental findings in the context of genetics and genomics. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 36, 280–285. 212.CrossRef
Clayton, E. W., Haga, S., Kuszler, P., Bane, E., Shutske, K., Burke, W. (2013). Managing incidental findings: legal obligations of clinicians. Genetics in Medicine; Advanced online publication, 28 Feb 2013.
Dondorp, W., Sikkema-Raddatz, B., de Die-Smulders, C., & de Wert, G. (2012). Arrays in postnatal and prenatal diagnostics: an exploration of the ethics of consent. Human Mutation, 33(6), 916–922.PubMedCrossRef
Downing, N. R., Williams, J. K., Daack-Hirsch, S., Driessnack, M., & Simon, C. M. (2013). Genetics specialists’ perspectives on disclosure of genomic incidental findings in the clinical setting. Patient Education and Counseling, 90, 133–138.PubMedCrossRef
Ellison, J. W., Ravnan, J. B., Rosenfeld, J. A., Morton, S. A., Neill, N. J., Williams, M. S., et al. (2012). Clinical utility of chromosomal microarray analysis. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1085–e1095.PubMedCrossRef
Fanos, J. H. (2012). New “first families”: the psychosocial impact of new genetic technologies. Genetics in Medicine, 14(2), 189–190.PubMedCrossRef
Grote, L., Myers, M., Lovell, A., Saal, H., & Lipscomb, S. K. (2012). Variability in laboratory reporting practices for regions of homozygosity indicating parental relatedness as identified by SNP microarray testing. Genetics in Medicine, 14(12), 971–976.PubMedCrossRef
Haga, S. B., O’daniel, J. M., Tindall, G. M., Lipkus, I. R., & Agans, R. (2011). Public attitudes toward ancillary information revealed by pharmacogenetic testing under limited informational conditions. Genetics in Medicine, 13, 732–738.
Harper, P. (2010). Practical genetic counselling, 7th Ed (pp. 135–138). London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.
Johnson, A. D., Bhimavarapu, A., Benjamin, E. J., Fox, C., Levy, D., Jarvik, G. P., et al. (2010). CLIA-tested genetic variants on commercial SNP arrays: potential for incidental findings in genome-wide association studies. Genetics in Medicine, 12, 355–363.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Kohane, I. S., Hsing, M., & Kong, S. W. (2012). Taxonomizing, sizing, and overcoming the incidentalome. Genetics in Medicine, 14, 399–404.PubMedCrossRef
Li, M. M., & Andersson, H. C. (2009). Clinical application of microarray-based molecular cytogenetics: an emerging new era of genomic medicine. Journal of Pediatrics, 155, 311–317.PubMedCrossRef
Lohn, Z., Adam, S., Birch, P., Townsend, A., & Friedman, J. (2013a). Genetics professionals’ perspectives on reporting incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 161A, 542–549.PubMedCrossRef
Lohn, Z., Adam, S., Birch, P. H., & Friedman, J. M. (2013b). Incidental findings from clinical genome-wide sequencing: a review. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2013, 1–11.
McGuire, A. L., & Lupski, J. R. (2010). Personal genome research: what should the participant be told? Trends in Genetics, 26, 199–201.PubMedCrossRef
Miller, D. T., Adam, M. P., Aradhya, S., Biesecker, L., Brothman, A. R., Carter, N. P., et al. (2010). Consensus statement: chromosomal microarray is a first-tier clinical diagnostic test for individuals with developmental disabilities or congenital anomalies. American Journal of Human Genetics, 86, 749–764.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2006). The code of ethics of the national society of genetic counselors. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 15(5), 309–311.CrossRef
Papenhausen, P., Schwartz, S., & Risheg, H. (2011). UPD detection using homozygosity profiling with a SNP genotyping microarray. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155A, 757–768.PubMedCrossRef
Paul, D. B., & Spencer, H. G. (2008). “It’s ok, we’re not cousins by blood”: the cousin marriage controversy in historical perspective. PLoS Biology, 6, 2627–2630.PubMedCrossRef
Pichert, G., Mohammed, S. N., Ahn, J. W., Ogilvie, C. M., & Izatt, L. (2011). Unexpected findings in cancer predisposition genes detected by array comparative genomic hybridization: what are the issues? Journal of Medical Genetics, 48, 535–539.PubMedCrossRef
Rehder, C. W., David, K. L., Hirsch, B., Toriello, H., Wilson, C. M., & Kearney, H. M. (2013). American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics: standards and guidelines for documenting suspected consanguinity as an incidental finding of genomic testing. Genetics in Medicine, 15(2), 150–152.PubMedCrossRef
Reiff, M., Ross, K., Mulchandani, S., Propert, K. J., Pyeritz, R. E., Spinner, N. B., et al. (2012). Physicians’ perspectives on the uncertainties and implications of chromosomal microarray testing of children and families. Clinical Genetics, 83, 23–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Schaff, C. P., Scott, D. A., Wiszniewska, J., & Beaudet, A. L. (2011). Identification of incestuous parental relationship by SNP-based DNA microarrays. Lancet, 377, 555–556.CrossRef
Shaffer, L. G., Kashork, C. D., Saleki, R., Rorem, E., Sundin, K., Ballif, B. C., et al. (2006). Targeted genomic microarray analysis for identification of chromosome abnormalities in 1500 consecutive clinical cases. Journal of Pediatrics, 149, 98–102.PubMedCrossRef
Sund, K. L., Zimmerman, S. L., Thomas, C., Mitchell, A. L., Prada, C. E., Grote, L., et al. (2013). Regions of homozygosity identified by SNP microarray analysis aids in the diagnosis of autosomal recessive disease and incidentally detect parental blood relationships. Genetics in Medicine, 15(1), 70–78.PubMedCrossRef
Tarini, B. A., Konczal, L. L., Goldenberg, A. J., Goldman, E. B., & McCandless, S. E. (2013). The perils of SNP microarray testing: uncovering unexpected consanguinity. Pediatric Neurology, 49, 50–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Three Clinical Experiences with SNP Array Results Consistent with Parental Incest: A Narrative with Lessons Learned
Authors
Benjamin M. Helm
Katherine Langley
Brooke Spangler
Samantha Vergano
Publication date
01-08-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Genetic Counseling / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Electronic ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-013-9669-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

Journal of Genetic Counseling 4/2014 Go to the issue

Original Research

A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Providers’ Perspectives on the Implications of Genome-Wide Testing in Pediatric Clinical Practice

Original Research

Personalized Genomic Results: Analysis of Informational Needs

Next Generation Genetic Counseling

Genetic Counselors’ Views and Experiences with the Clinical Integration of Genome Sequencing

Next Generation Genetic Counseling

Next Generation Sequencing is the Impetus for the Next Generation of Laboratory-Based Genetic Counselors

Next Generation Genetic Counseling

An Assessment of Time Involved in Pre-test Case Review and Counseling for a Whole Genome Sequencing Clinical Research Program

Next Generation Genetic Counseling

Views of Genetics Health Professionals on the Return of Genomic Results