Lumping versus splitting: How to approach defining a disease to enable accurate genomic curation

Courtney Thaxton, Jennifer Goldstein, Marina DiStefano, Kathleen Wallace, P. Dane Witmer, Melissa A. Haendel, Ada Hamosh, Heidi L. Rehm, Jonathan S. Berg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

The dilemma of how to categorize and classify diseases has been debated for centuries. The field of medical genetics has historically approached nosology based on clinical phenotypes observed in patients and families. Advances in genomic sequencing and understanding of genetic contributions to disease often provoke a need to reassess these classifications. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed frameworks to classify the strength of evidence underlying monogenic gene-disease relationships, variant pathogenicity, and clinical actionability. It is therefore necessary to define the disease entity being evaluated, which can be challenging for genes associated with multiple conditions and/or a broad phenotypic spectrum. We therefore developed criteria to guide “lumping and splitting” decisions and improve consistency in defining monogenic gene-disease relationships. Here, we outline the precuration process, the lumping and splitting guidelines with examples, and describe the implications for clinical diagnosis, informatics, and care management.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number100131
JournalCell Genomics
Volume2
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 11 2022

Keywords

  • curation
  • disease ontology
  • genotype
  • nosology
  • phenotype
  • pleiotropism
  • taxonomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Genetics
  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Lumping versus splitting: How to approach defining a disease to enable accurate genomic curation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this