Next Article in Journal
Targeted Physical Therapy Combined with Spasticity Management Changes Motor Development Trajectory for a 2-Year-Old with Cerebral Palsy
Previous Article in Journal
The Potential of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Neuroblastoma Therapy for Delivery of Anti-Cancer Agents and Hematopoietic Recovery
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Rare Variants Associated with Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy: Reclassification Five Years Later

Marta Vallverdú-Prats
Mireia Alcalde
Georgia Sarquella-Brugada
Sergi Cesar
Elena Arbelo
Anna Fernandez-Falgueras
Mónica Coll
Alexandra Pérez-Serra
Marta Puigmulé
Anna Iglesias
Victoria Fiol
Carles Ferrer-Costa
Bernat del Olmo
Ferran Picó
Laura Lopez
Paloma Jordà
Ana García-Álvarez
Coloma Tirón de Llano
Rocío Toro
Simone Grassi
Antonio Oliva
Josep Brugada
Ramon Brugada
1,2,3,6,* and
Oscar Campuzano
add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
Cardiovascular Genetics Center, University of Girona—IdIBGi, 17190 Girona, Spain
Centro Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Cardiovasculares (CIBERCV), 28029 Madrid, Spain
Medical Science Department, School of Medicine, University of Girona, 17071 Girona, Spain
Arrhythmias Unit, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, University of Barcelona, 08950 Barcelona, Spain
Arrhythmias Unit, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, University of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
Cardiology Service, Hospital Dr. Josep Trueta, University of Girona, 17007 Girona, Spain
Medicine Department, School of Medicine, 11003 Cadiz, Spain
Institute of Public Health, Section Legal Medicine, Catholic University, 00153 Rome, Italy
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Both authors equally contributed as first author.
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(3), 162;
Submission received: 5 February 2021 / Revised: 17 February 2021 / Accepted: 19 February 2021 / Published: 26 February 2021


Genetic interpretation of rare variants associated with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is essential due to their diagnostic implications. New data may relabel previous variant classifications, but how often reanalysis is necessary remains undefined. Five years ago, 39 rare ACM-related variants were identified in patients with features of cardiomyopathy. These variants were classified following the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics’ guidelines. In the present study, we reevaluated these rare variants including novel available data. All cases carried one rare variant classified as being of ambiguous significance (82.05%) or likely pathogenic (17.95%) in 2016. In our comprehensive reanalysis, the classification of 30.77% of these variants changed, mainly due to updated global frequencies. As in 2016, nowadays most variants were classified as having an uncertain role (64.1%), but the proportion of variants with an uncertain role was significantly decreased (17.95%). The percentage of rare variants classified as potentially deleterious increased from 17.95% to 23.07%. Moreover, 83.33% of reclassified variants gained certainty. We propose that periodic genetic reanalysis of all rare variants associated with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy should be undertaken at least once every five years. Defining the roles of rare variants may help clinicians obtain a definite diagnosis.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is a rare disorder characterized by progressive replacement of the myocardium by fibrofatty tissue, and this myocyte disorganization increases the risk for ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death [1,2]. Tissue substitution occurs predominantly in the right ventricle, but biventricular forms have also been reported [3]. Moreover, isolated forms affecting only the left ventricle have also been published [4]. Diagnosis of ACM does not rely on a single gold standard test but is achieved using a scoring system proposed in 1994 by Task Force Criteria (TFC), encompassing familial and genetic factors, electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities, and structural/functional ventricular alterations [5,6]. In 2010, a revision of the TFC was proposed to incorporate new knowledge and technology to improve diagnostic sensitivity while maintaining diagnostic specificity [7]. This is important because correct diagnosis prevents over- or under-treatment and reduces the morbidity and mortality of ACM patients [8]. Also, there is evidence that differences in the propensity for life-threatening arrhythmias, left ventricular dysfunction, and heart failure can be explained by gene-specific alterations [9].
A definite genetic variant classified as pathogenic represents a major criterion for ACM diagnosis in the TFC [10]. Currently, comprehensive genetic analysis allows identification of a genetic cause in up to 60% of ACM cases [11]. Although there are several genes reported to be associated with ACM, most ACM patients carry pathogenic alterations in genes encoding desmosomal proteins, with PKP2 being the main gene currently associated with ACM [12]. However, genetic diagnosis is challenging in ACM families because the clinical role of rare variants located in known genes is not always clear due to a lack of conclusive data as well as overlap of causal genes with other inherited cardiomyopathies [10,12,13]. This ambiguity impedes inclusion of genetic results in a definite diagnosis of ACM. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) standards and guidelines have structured standard terminology for classifying sequence variants using available evidence weighted according to a system developed through expert opinion, work-group consensus, and community input [14]. Accurate genetic interpretation following ACMG recommendations facilitates clinical translation of rare genetic variants and more individualized clinical management of patients [15].
Continuous improvement in the genetic data concerning rare variants may modify previous classifications and thus alter patient diagnosis and treatment, prenatal diagnosis or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis [16], and screening of at-risk family members [13,16]. To date, few studies have focused on proper genetic reinterpretation of available data before clinical translation [17,18]. These limited studies have focused on inherited arrhythmogenic diseases but have not addressed how often reanalysis is necessary in ACM-related genes. Our study aims to clarify this crucial point, facilitating accurate genetic classification, clinical diagnosis, and the adoption of personalized measures in families afflicted by ACM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Cohort

We reanalysed and reinterpreted 39 rare variants identified in 2016 from 39 patients that presented features of ACM (definite, borderline or possible diagnosis following TFC). These rare variants were originally classified as pathogenic (P), likely pathogenic (LP), or variants of unknown significance (VUS) following ACMG recommendations [14]. Variants classified as likely benign (LB) and/or benign (B) in 2016 were not reanalysed because their global frequencies in 2016 were >1%, and they were already reported to be definitively non-causative in ACM. Genetic analysis was approved by the ethics committee of Hospital Josep Trueta (Girona, Spain) following the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Clinical and genetic data concerning all patients were kept anonymous. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study before genetic analysis.

2.2. Genetic Analysis

Genomic DNA was extracted from whole blood, and its concentration and purity were determined. Comprehensive genetic analysis was performed, including all genes associated with ACM in 2016 and all isoforms described in Ensembl 75 ( linked to RefSeq code ( or CCDS ( Sequence data coordinates were based on the UCSC human genome version hg19 (NCBI GRCh37 build). Secondary, bioinformatic analysis included adaptor and low-quality base-trimming of the FASTQ files. Variant calling from the cleaned BAM files was performed with SAMtools v.1.2 and an ad hoc developed script. The final annotation steps provided information included in public databases. Non-common (minor allele frequency [MAF] <1%) genetic variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Exons and exon–intron boundaries of each gene were amplified in both directions with posterior analysis, comparing obtained results with the reference sequence from hg19.
Identified rare variants were compared with with HapMap (, the 1000 Genomes Project (, the Exome Variant Server (EVS) ( in 2016, and the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) ( in 2021. All rare variants were described following HGVS ( and consulted in ClinGen (, VarSome (, the SCD-associated Variants Annotation Database (SVAD) (, CardioClassifier (, InterVar (, CardioVAI ( and CardioBoost (

2.3. Data

An exhaustive review of the literature concerning each variant was performed through January 2021. Data was collected from HGMD (, ClinVar (, the National Center for Biotechnology Information SNP database (, Index Copernicus (, Google Scholar (, Springer Link (, Science Direct (, Excerpta Medica Database (, and IEEE Xplore Digital Library (

2.4. Classification

In 2016, rare variants were classified following the same ACMG standards currently in use [14]. In 2021, variants were classified following the updated ACMG standards [19,20]. The PM2 item in the ACMG classification was calculated based on [21] to find the threshold of the rare variant frequency.
The classification “high degree of pathogenicity” should only be used for rare variants in genes in which loss of function is a well-established disease mechanism [22]. Genetic data were independently evaluated and classified by six experts (three cardiologists and three clinical geneticists). All investigators discussed and agreed on final classification of all variants to avoid bias.

3. Results

We reinterpreted 39 rare variants in ACM related genes identified in 39 non-related Caucasian patients with features of ACM in 2016 (9 definite and 30 possible diagnosis in 2016. These rare variants were mainly located in desmosomal genes (35/39 = 89.75%): 11 in PKP2, 15 in DSP, six in DSG2, two in DSC2 and one in JUP. There were also four rare variants in non-desmosomal genes (4/39 = 10.25%): three in TMEM43 and one in DES (Figure 1A). Most rare variants were missense (27, 69.23%), and there were also seven indels (17.94%), three intronic variants (7.69%), and two nonsense variants (5.13%) (Figure 1B).
After a comprehensive analysis, 12 of the 39 rare variants (30.77%) were reclassified (Table 1). Most of the rare variants were classified as variants of unknown significance (VUS) in 2016 (32 rare variants, 82.05%) and in the current reclassification the number has been significantly reduced (25 rare variants, 64.10%). Thus, the number of variants classified as VUS was reduced by 17.95% in our reassessment.
Of the nine reclassified VUS variants, two were now classified as benign, three as likely benign (LB) and four as likely pathogenic (LP). In 2016 we identified seven likely pathogenic (LP) variants (17.94%), but only four remained LP five years after. Two of the 2016 LP variants changed to VUS and one to P (Figure 2).
Importantly, 10 out of 12 (83.33%) reclassified variants gained certainty upon reclassification. Among likely pathogenic mutations, 37.5% (3/8) qualified as predicted null variants in a gene where loss of function is a known mechanism of disease (very strong criteria-PVS1). Only one missense variant (variant 4 DSG2;c.146G>A) was classified as P due to the sum of different criteria and with several strong supporting clinical reports available (very strong criteria-PP5) (Table 2). On the other hand, all LB and B variants (in desmosomal genes) were frequent enough to qualify as strong criteria in the population data (BA1/BS1) (Table 2). In 2016, the ExAC database showed a total of 31 rare variants without frequency data in the global population (79.48%). Updated global frequencies in the gnomAD database showed that the absolute number of rare variants found in the general population increased in comparison to 2016, and only 18 rare variants still remain unidentified in the general population (46.15%).

4. Discussion

In our study, 39 rare variants in ACM-related genes were identified in 39 non-related Caucasian patients with features of ACM five years ago. Using currently available data, we updated the 2016 classifications of 30.77% of the rare variants. Importantly, 83.33% of these relabelled rare variants gained certainty in their significance. Our results support periodic evaluation of rare variants associated with ACM at least once every five years as this may directly impact final diagnosis as described in a previous study [18]. They also have found that a significant number of variants have changed their classification after the revaluation, so it is important to perform that kind of reassessments in possible or definitive ACM patients. Moreover, they also have focused on the impact that genetic testing has in the ACM diagnosis taking into account the 2010 TFC. However, there are some important differences between the two studies. Their initial classification was not performed systematically following the 2015 ACMG criteria in all patients, only some of them: 53.2% were performed before the 2015 ACMG criteria, whereas 43.8% were performed thereafter. In their study, criteria were significantly less likely to be reclassified in the latter group with 35.1% of variant reclassification. Here, we classified all variants taking into account the 2015 ACMG criteria at the beginning and after 5 years in the same way, with very similar results (30.77 % of change). We propose a limit of time of 5 years to perform the reclassification due to the results that we obtained; after 5 years, a significant number of variants have changed its classification.
VUS variants represented 82.05% of variants in ACM carriers in the original classification in 2016 but only 64.1% of variants in the present study. Moreover, other studies in different cardiomyopathies have similarly concluded that uncertainty is reduced after variant reclassification [23,24]. In the present study, 83.33% of reclassified variants gained certainty, only two of them (DSP c.1696G>A; PKP2 c.2633C>T) have lost certainty changing from LP to VUS. It is important to say that in those two cases, the new data released did not bring uncertainty. A better-performed variant classification may have a major impact in clarifying the origin of ACM in patients as well as in relatives who have borderline phenotypic manifestations. Our genetic results did not impact in clinical diagnosis due to no borderline cases existing in our cohort, either in 2016 or today. It is important to remark that VUS results have been associated with increased patient anxiety, incorrect recall of results, reduced uptake of family screening, and lower rates of sharing information with family [8]. VUS are a remarkable topic also from a forensic point of view, since when they represent the only finding in a negative autopsy case, it is impossible to determine the cause of the death [25]. The fact that VUS represent the majority of the variants found at the genetic testing in cases of sudden cardiac death, is one of the reasons why some authors do not support the mandatory use of post-mortem genetic testing in SCD cases with ambiguous or no macroscopic/microscopic anomalies. However, as shown by this paper, when more information useful to define the significance of the variants is obtained, a noteworthy share of VUS is reinterpreted as P, proving the importance of collecting and sharing data both in clinical and in forensic contexts [26,27,28]. In detail, in our study, four VUS variants changed to LP or P; three of these variants were PKP2 premature termination codon (PTC), with new global genetic studies identifying no alleles or alleles with an extremely low frequency. Haploinsufficiency in PKP2 is well established to be disease-causing in ACM [29], so novel rare variants, especially PTC, should be considered as having a potential deleterious role in ACM. Moreover, the other VUS variant that changed into LP (c.1034+2dupT) is an intronic duplication also in PKP2.
On the other hand, three other VUS variants in 2016 changed to LB in our reanalysis. In all these cases, massive genotyping data released in the past five years played a key role in reclassification. Therefore, the absolute number of alleles is currently higher than expected for a rare genetic disease such as ACM. Importantly, updated global frequencies allow us to identify data in 53.85% of ACM carriers compared to only 20% of ACM variants identified five years ago. In a recent study, a common reason for genetic reclassification of variants in ACM was a high minor allele frequency in the general population [18].
In addition to updated global frequencies, it is also important to take into account specific scientific findings regarding rare variants to improve knowledge and clarify their role in ACM pathophysiology. In this sense, all rare variants with novel available in vitro and/or family co-segregation data have been reclassified into a higher degree of certainty. In our view, complete family segregation is the most important data to clarify the role of a rare variant, especially if a recessive pattern of inheritance is suspected, as observed in DSG2_p.(Thr335Ala) [30]. High variant frequencies in ACM patients (classified as LB in heterozygosis) cannot exclude a pathogenic role if a recessive pattern is suspected, reinforcing the need for cautious personalized interpretation before clinical translation. Several studies demonstrate pathogenesis of recessive mutations in DSC2 that cause ACM [31,32,33].
Moreover, we should be especially careful in interpreting variants, taking into account suspected disease, affected genes, and previous classification. The PKP2_ p.(Met365Val) variant was previously described as potentially disease-causing in Brugada syndrome (BrS) [34]. Although in vitro studies show its effect on the nav1.5 current in a cellular model, its role in ACM is still unclear with no clinical data. Moreover, ECG abnormalities observed in the early stages of ACM may be similar to those in BrS [35,36]. However, the current global frequency of the PKP2_ p.(Met365Val) variant has increased during these five years, suggesting a non-deleterious role. Thus, new in vitro studies are also important for reclassifying rare variants into a group with higher certainty. In our study, DSG2_ p.(Arg49His) has been reclassified as definitively P based on co-segregation [37] and an in vitro study [38] published in the last 5 years.
Finally, a report has been published recently concerning the role of VUS in inherited arrhythmias and cardiomyopathies [8]. The VUS classification does not provide enough information to make an accurate interpretation, so it is acceptable to consider the variant as “non-actionable” [16,39]. All data conclude that interpretation of a variant classified as a VUS is complex and, sometimes, this result causes a mistaken reduction in familial screenings [40]. It is important to avoid that possibility, so the final objective will be to reduce VUS results as much as possible, although performing segregation studies, when possible, is highly recommended even in VUS variants when there are no more plausible genetic variants to be causal. For this reason, it is appropriate to revaluate variant significance from time to time, at least once every 5 years for ACM-related genes.

5. Conclusions

Identifying a definite pathogenic variant is a key point in the diagnosis of ACM. Therefore, accurate interpretation of variants identified in patients should be mandatory. An exhaustive and updated genetic clarification of rare variants associated with ACM is warranted because it has practical consequences for patients and their relatives. Most rare variants remain of ambiguous significance due to lack of functional data, conclusive family segregation, and updated global frequency. It is important to highlight this data because VUS is an uninformative genetic result in translation into clinical practice, and genetic and clinical professionals cannot make informed clinical decisions based on such a classification. We recommend reanalysing rare variants associated with ACM at least once every five years. When significant changes in classification occur, cardiologists should promptly inform interested patients and, if necessary, modify their therapeutic approach.

6. Limitations

A different interpretation of genetic data for some rare variants included in our study may induce controversy regarding their role, especially for variants classified as VUS. To minimize controversy, all authors came to a consensus regarding the final classification decision. Importantly, reclassifications in our study should be corroborated in additional larger cohorts of ACM families. Finally, we have not assessed the time or economic cost of reinterpretation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.C., G.S.-B., A.O., J.B. and R.B.; Software, C.F.-C. and B.d.O.; Validation, M.V.-P., M.A., O.C. and A.F.-F.; Formal Analysis, M.V.-P., M.A., O.C., A.F.-F., M.C., A.P.-S., F.P., L.L., M.P., B.d.O., A.I., V.F., C.F.-C., A.G.-Á., S.C., E.A., S.G., P.J. and R.T.; Investigation, M.V.-P., M.A., O.C. and A.F.-F.; Data curation: M.V.-P., M.A., O.C., A.F.-F., M.C., A.P, F.P., L.L., M.P., B.d.O., A.I., V.F., C.F.-C., S.C., E.A., S.G., P.J. and R.T.; Writing—original draft, M.V.-P., M.A., O.C., G.S.-B., S.C. and E.A.; Writing—review and editing, M.V.-P., M.A., G.S.-B., S.C., E.A., A.F.-F., M.C., A.P.-S., M.P., A.I., V.F., C.F.-C., B.d.O., F.P., L.L., P.J., C.T.d.L., R.T., S.G., A.O., J.B., R.B. and O.C.; Supervision, M.A., O.C., G.S.-B., A.O., J.B. and R.B.; Funding acquisition, R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This work was supported by Obra Social “La Caixa Foundation” (LCF/PR/GN16/50290001 and LCF/PR/GN19/50320002), La Marató de TV3 (400/U/2015) and Sociedad Española Cardiología, Proyecto Investigación Básica Cardiología 2020. CIBERCV is an initiative of the ISCIII, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness. Funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Hospital Dr. Josep Trueta (Projecte GENCARDIO-RESEARCH, 02/08/2012).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained in 2016 from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. Karmouch, J.; Protonotarios, A.; Syrris, P. Genetic basis of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 2018, 33, 276–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Basso, C.; Corrado, D.; Marcus, F.I.; Nava, A.; Thiene, G. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Lancet 2009, 373, 1289–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Corrado, D.; Basso, C.; Judge, D.P. Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy. Circ. Res. 2017, 121, 784–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. He, J.; Xu, J.; Li, G.; Zhou, D.; Li, S.; Zhuang, B.; Chen, X.; Duan, X.; Li, L.; Fan, X.; et al. Arrhythmogenic Left Ventricular Cardiomyopathy: A Clinical and CMR Study. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Corrado, D.; Link, M.S.; Calkins, H. Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017, 376, 1489–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. McKenna, W.J.; Thiene, G.; Nava, A.; Fontaliran, F.; Blomstrom-Lundqvist, C.; Fontaine, G.; Camerini, F. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy. Task Force of the Working Group Myocardial and Pericardial Disease of the European Society of Cardiology and of the Scientific Council on Cardiomyopathies of the International Society and Federation of Cardiology. Br. Heart J. 1994, 71, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Marcus, F.I.; McKenna, W.J.; Sherrill, D.; Basso, C.; Bauce, B.; Bluemke, D.A.; Calkins, H.; Corrado, D.; Cox, M.G.; Daubert, J.P.; et al. Diagnosis of arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia: Proposed modification of the Task Force Criteria. Eur. Heart J. 2010, 31, 806–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Muller, R.D.; McDonald, T.; Pope, K.; Cragun, D. Evaluation of Clinical Practices Related to Variants of Uncertain Significance Results in Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmia and Inherited Cardiomyopathy Genes. Circ. Genom. Precis. Med. 2020, 13, e002789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Bhonsale, A.; Groeneweg, J.A.; James, C.A.; Dooijes, D.; Tichnell, C.; Jongbloed, J.D.; Murray, B.; te Riele, A.S.; van den Berg, M.P.; Bikker, H.; et al. Impact of genotype on clinical course in arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia/cardiomyopathy-associated mutation carriers. Eur. Heart J. 2015, 36, 847–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Musunuru, K.; Hershberger, R.E.; Day, S.M.; Klinedinst, N.J.; Landstrom, A.P.; Parikh, V.N.; Prakash, S.; Semsarian, C.; Sturm, A.C.; American Heart Association Council on Genomic and Precision Medicine; et al. Genetic Testing for Inherited Cardiovascular Diseases: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circ. Genom. Precis. Med. 2020, 13, e000067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Groeneweg, J.A.; Bhonsale, A.; James, C.A.; te Riele, A.S.; Dooijes, D.; Tichnell, C.; Murray, B.; Wiesfeld, A.C.; Sawant, A.C.; Kassamali, B.; et al. Clinical Presentation, Long-Term Follow-Up, and Outcomes of 1001 Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Dysplasia/Cardiomyopathy Patients and Family Members. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2015, 8, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Austin, K.M.; Trembley, M.A.; Chandler, S.F.; Sanders, S.P.; Saffitz, J.E.; Abrams, D.J.; Pu, W.T. Molecular mechanisms of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2019, 16, 519–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Hershberger, R.E.; Givertz, M.M.; Ho, C.Y.; Judge, D.P.; Kantor, P.F.; McBride, K.L.; Morales, A.; Taylor, M.R.G.; Vatta, M.; Ware, S.M.; et al. Genetic evaluation of cardiomyopathy: A clinical practice resource of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet. Med. 2018, 20, 899–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Richards, S.; Aziz, N.; Bale, S.; Bick, D.; Das, S.; Gastier-Foster, J.; Grody, W.W.; Hegde, M.; Lyon, E.; Spector, E.; et al. Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: A joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet. Med. Off. J. Am. Coll. Med. Genet. 2015, 17, 405–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Campuzano, O.; Sarquella-Brugada, G.; Fernandez-Falgueras, A.; Coll, M.; Iglesias, A.; Ferrer-Costa, C.; Cesar, S.; Arbelo, E.; Garcia-Alvarez, A.; Jorda, P.; et al. Reanalysis and reclassification of rare genetic variants associated with inherited arrhythmogenic syndromes. EBioMedicine 2020, 54, 102732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Towbin, J.A.; McKenna, W.J.; Abrams, D.J.; Ackerman, M.J.; Calkins, H.; Darrieux, F.C.C.; Daubert, J.P.; de Chillou, C.; DePasquale, E.C.; Desai, M.Y.; et al. 2019 HRS expert consensus statement on evaluation, risk stratification, and management of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy: Executive summary. Heart Rhythm 2019, 16, e373–e407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Bennett, J.S.; Bernhardt, M.; McBride, K.L.; Reshmi, S.C.; Zmuda, E.; Kertesz, N.J.; Garg, V.; Fitzgerald-Butt, S.; Kamp, A.N. Reclassification of Variants of Uncertain Significance in Children with Inherited Arrhythmia Syndromes is Predicted by Clinical Factors. Pediatric Cardiol. 2019, 40, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Costa, S.; Medeiros-Domingo, A.; Gasperetti, A.; Akdis, D.; Berger, W.; James, C.A.; Ruschitzka, F.; Brunckhorst, C.B.; Duru, F.; Saguner, A.M. Impact of Genetic Variant Reassessment on the Diagnosis of Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy Based on the 2010 Task Force Criteria. Circulation. Genomic and precision medicine 2021, 14, e003047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Harrison, S.M.; Biesecker, L.G.; Rehm, H.L. Overview of Specifications to the ACMG/AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines. Curr. Protoc. Hum. Genet. 2019, 103, e93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Whiffin, N.; Minikel, E.; Walsh, R.; O’Donnell-Luria, A.H.; Karczewski, K.; Ing, A.Y.; Barton, P.J.R.; Funke, B.; Cook, S.A.; MacArthur, D.; et al. Using high-resolution variant frequencies to empower clinical genome interpretation. Genet. Med. Off. J. Am. Coll. Med. Genet. 2017, 19, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. Walsh, R.; Thomson, K.L.; Ware, J.S.; Funke, B.H.; Woodley, J.; McGuire, K.J.; Mazzarotto, F.; Blair, E.; Seller, A.; Taylor, J.C.; et al. Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples. Genet. Med. Off. J. Am. Coll. Med. Genet. 2017, 19, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Abou Tayoun, A.N.; Pesaran, T.; DiStefano, M.T.; Oza, A.; Rehm, H.L.; Biesecker, L.G.; Harrison, S.M. ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group. Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion. Hum. Mutat. 2018, 39, 1517–1524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Quiat, D.; Witkowski, L.; Zouk, H.; Daly, K.P.; Roberts, A.E. Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Genetic Testing in Pediatric Primary Dilated Cardiomyopathy: Testing Outcomes and the Effects of Variant Reclassification. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2020, 9, e016195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Das, K.J.; Ingles, J.; Bagnall, R.D.; Semsarian, C. Determining pathogenicity of genetic variants in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: Importance of periodic reassessment. Genet. Med. 2014, 16, 286–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Grassi, S.; Campuzano, O.; Coll, M.; Brion, M.; Arena, V.; Iglesias, A.; Carracedo, A.; Brugada, R.; Oliva, A. Genetic variants of uncertain significance: How to match scientific rigour and standard of proof in sudden cardiac death? Legal Med. 2020, 45, 101712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Coll, M.; Allegue, C.; Partemi, S.; Mates, J.; Del Olmo, B.; Campuzano, O.; Pascali, V.; Iglesias, A.; Striano, P.; Oliva, A.; et al. Genetic investigation of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy cohort by panel target resequencing. Int. J. Legal Med. 2016, 130, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Partemi, S.; Vidal, M.C.; Striano, P.; Campuzano, O.; Allegue, C.; Pezzella, M.; Elia, M.; Parisi, P.; Belcastro, V.; Casellato, S.; et al. Genetic and forensic implications in epilepsy and cardiac arrhythmias: A case series. Int. J. Legal Med. 2015, 129, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Campuzano, O.; Alcalde, M.; Iglesias, A.; Barahona-Dussault, C.; Sarquella-Brugada, G.; Benito, B.; Arzamendi, D.; Flores, J.; Leung, T.K.; Talajic, M.; et al. Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: Severe structural alterations are associated with inflammation. J. Clin. Pathol. 2012, 65, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rasmussen, T.B.; Nissen, P.H.; Palmfeldt, J.; Gehmlich, K.; Dalager, S.; Jensen, U.B.; Kim, W.Y.; Heickendorff, L.; Molgaard, H.; Jensen, H.K.; et al. Truncating plakophilin-2 mutations in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy are associated with protein haploinsufficiency in both myocardium and epidermis. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2014, 7, 230–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Qadri, S.; Anttonen, O.; Viikila, J.; Seppala, E.H.; Myllykangas, S.; Alastalo, T.P.; Holmstrom, M.; Helio, T.; Koskenvuo, J.W. Case reports of two pedigrees with recessive arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy associated with homozygous Thr335Ala variant in DSG2. BMC Med. Genet. 2017, 18, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gerull, B.; Kirchner, F.; Chong, J.X.; Tagoe, J.; Chandrasekharan, K.; Strohm, O.; Waggoner, D.; Ober, C.; Duff, H.J. Homozygous founder mutation in desmocollin-2 (DSC2) causes arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy in the Hutterite population. Circ. Cardiovasc. Genet. 2013, 6, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Lorenzon, A.; Pilichou, K.; Rigato, I.; Vazza, G.; De Bortoli, M.; Calore, M.; Occhi, G.; Carturan, E.; Lazzarini, E.; Cason, M.; et al. Homozygous Desmocollin-2 Mutations and Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy. Am. J. Cardiol. 2015, 116, 1245–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Brodehl, A.; Weiss, J.; Debus, J.D.; Stanasiuk, C.; Klauke, B.; Deutsch, M.A.; Fox, H.; Bax, J.; Ebbinghaus, H.; Gartner, A.; et al. A homozygous DSC2 deletion associated with arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy is caused by uniparental isodisomy. J. Mol. Cell Cardiol. 2020, 141, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cerrone, M.; Lin, X.; Zhang, M.; Agullo-Pascual, E.; Pfenniger, A.; Chkourko Gusky, H.; Novelli, V.; Kim, C.; Tirasawadichai, T.; Judge, D.P.; et al. Missense mutations in plakophilin-2 cause sodium current deficit and associate with a Brugada syndrome phenotype. Circulation 2014, 129, 1092–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Peters, S. Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy and provocable Brugada ECG in a patient caused by missense mutation in plakophilin-2. Int. J. Cardiol. 2014, 173, 317–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moncayo-Arlandi, J.; Brugada, R. Unmasking the molecular link between arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy and Brugada syndrome. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2017, 14, 744–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chen, X.; Peng, H.; Zheng, C.; Zhang, H.; Yan, C.; Ma, H.; Dai, X.; Li, X. Two pedigrees with arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy linked with R49H and F531C mutation in DSG2. Hum. Genome Var. 2019, 6, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Vite, A.; Gandjbakhch, E.; Hery, T.; Fressart, V.; Gary, F.; Simon, F.; Varnous, S.; Hidden Lucet, F.; Charron, P.; Villard, E. Desmoglein-2 mutations in propeptide cleavage-site causes arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy/dysplasia by impairing extracellular 1-dependent desmosomal interactions upon cellular stress. Europace 2020, 22, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Arscott, P.; Caleshu, C.; Kotzer, K.; Kreykes, S.; Kruisselbrink, T.; Orland, K.; Rigelsky, C.; Smith, E.; Spoonamore, K.; Larsen Haidle, J.; et al. A Case for Inclusion of Genetic Counselors in Cardiac Care. Cardiol. Rev. 2016, 24, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Ingles, J.; Semsarian, C. The value of cardiac genetic testing. Trends Cardiovasc. Med. 2014, 24, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Rare variant distribution in genes and mutation types. (A) Localization of the 39 evaluated variants in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM)-causal genes. (B) Distribution of mutation types of the 39 evaluated variants.
Figure 1. Rare variant distribution in genes and mutation types. (A) Localization of the 39 evaluated variants in arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM)-causal genes. (B) Distribution of mutation types of the 39 evaluated variants.
Jpm 11 00162 g001
Figure 2. Distribution of the 39 revaluated variants into five groups of variant significance *. (A) Comparison of the number of variants in each group of significance. (B) Comparison of the number of variants between 2016 and 2021 classifications. * Five groups of variant significance: P = pathogenic; LP = likely pathogenic; VUS =variant of uncertain significance; LB = likely benign, and B = benign.
Figure 2. Distribution of the 39 revaluated variants into five groups of variant significance *. (A) Comparison of the number of variants in each group of significance. (B) Comparison of the number of variants between 2016 and 2021 classifications. * Five groups of variant significance: P = pathogenic; LP = likely pathogenic; VUS =variant of uncertain significance; LB = likely benign, and B = benign.
Jpm 11 00162 g002
Table 1. Rare variants found in ACM patients (grey indicates variants that have been reclassified).
Table 1. Rare variants found in ACM patients (grey indicates variants that have been reclassified).
ProbandDiagnosis 2016GeneNucleotideProteindbSNPExAC (2016)GnomAD (2021)2016 Classification2021 Classification
3DefiniteDSC2c.2587G>Ap.(Gly863Arg)rs1471098956/1,3001 (0.04%)69/25,1128 (0.02%)VUSVUS
4DefiniteDSG2c.146G>Ap.(Arg49His)rs121913006NI1/24,9482 (0.0004%)LPP
6DefiniteDSG2c.1003A>Gp.(Thr335Ala)rs1915649165/1,1919 (0.04%)130/24,9422 (0.05%)VUSLB
7PossibleDSG2c.1885C>Tp.(Pro629S)rs200804638NI6/24,9336 (0.002%)VUSVUS
8PossibleDSG2c.2825C>Tp.(Thr942Ile)rs771429752NI1/24,8492 (0.0004%)VUSVUS
9PossibleDSG2c.3266G>Ap.(Gly1089Asp)rs2002644079/1,2173 (0.07%)28/24,9268 (0.01%)VUSLB
10PossibleDSPc.130C>Tp.(Arg44Trp)rs1255744065NI2/17,7516 (0.001%)VUSVUS
14PossibleDSPc.1297C>Tp.(Arg433Cys)rs767032884NI2/25,1302 (0.0007%)VUSVUS
16PossibleDSPc.1696G>Ap.(Ala566Thr)rs1481475815/1,3001 (0.03%)50/25,1036 (0.01%)LPVUS
17PossibleDSPc.2515C>Tp.(His839Tyr)rs1561693806NI1/25,1454 (0.0003%)VUSVUS
18PossibleDSPc.2723G>Ap.(Arg908His)rs14249412114/1,2992 (0.1%)289/25,1322 (0.1%)VUSB
19PossibleDSPc.2723G>Tp.(Arg908Leu)rs142494121NI4/25,1322 (0.001%)VUSVUS
20PossibleDSPc.2867A>Gp.(Asn956Ser)rs1373071129NI1/24,8880 (0.0004%)VUSVUS
24PossibleDSPc.8498C>Gp.(Ser2833Cys)rs767961179NI3/24,6912 (0.001%)VUSVUS
25DefiniteJUPc.1235C>Tp.(Thr412Met)rs782551865NI2/25,1412 (0.0007%)VUSVUS
26PossiblePKP2c.122C>Gp.(Ala41Gly)rs1220759009NI1/3,1346 (0.003%)VUSVUS
27DefinitePKP2c.259G>Cp.(Val87Leu)rs750028032NI3/25,1410 (0.001%)VUSVUS
28PossiblePKP2c.505A>Gp.(Ser169Gly)rs13913985921/1,2979 (0.1%)294/25,1282 (0.1%)VUSB
31PossiblePKP2c.1093A>Gp.(Met365Val)rs1439009442/1,3004 (0.01%)67/25,1320 (0.02%)VUSLB
32DefinitePKP2c.1489C>Tp.(Arg497*)rs151212477NI2/21,7850 (0.0009%)VUSLP
36PossiblePKP2c.2633C>Tp.(Ser878Phe)rs1216433436NI1/25,1470 (0.0003%)LPVUS
38PossibleTMEM43c.1026C>Gp.(Asp342Glu)NI1/1,3005 (0.007%)NIVUSVUS
NI: allele not identified; VUS, variant of unknown significance; P, pathogenic; LP, likely pathogenic; LB, likely benign; B, benign.
Table 2. Most relevant indicators in the reanalyses.
Table 2. Most relevant indicators in the reanalyses.
Indicators for GeneIndicators for Variant
P Gene 1
(%) 1
P Variant
Rate 2
Loss of Function 3Population Data
Allelic Data 4Hot Spot 5Computational and Predictive Data 6Clinically Reported P before 7
1Desc.158T>Cp.(Val53Ala)VUSN/AN/A- NINIYes 6/13 No
2DSC2c.430A>Gp.(Met144Val)VUSB.TB.T-NINIYes1/13 No
3DSG2c.2587G>Ap.(Gly863Arg)VUSB.TB.T-0.02%69/25,1128 No10/13 No
4DSG2c.146G>Ap.(Arg49His)PB.TB.T-0.0004%1/24,9482Yes13/13>10 and no conflict
7DSG2c.1885C>Tp.(Pro629S)VUSB.TB.T-0.002%6/24,9336 No 8/13No
8DSG2c.2825C>Tp.(Thr942Ile)VUSB.TB.T-0.0004%1/24,8492 N/A5/13No
9DSG2c.3266G>Ap.(Gly1089Asp)LBB.TB.T-0.01%28/24,9268 No0/13No
10DSPc.130C>Tp.(Arg44Trp)VUSB.TB.T-0.001%2/17,7516 Yes6/13No
11DSPc.559G>Tp.(Val187Phe)VUSB.TB.T-NI NIYes4/13No
14DSPc.1297C>Tp.(Arg433Cys)VUSB.TB.T-0.0007%2/25,1302 Yes10/13No
16DSPc.1696G>Ap.(Ala566Thr)VUSB.TB.T-0.01%50/25,1036 Yes0/13No
17DSPc.2515C>Tp.(His839Tyr)VUSB.TB.T-0.0003%1/25,1454 Yes4/13No
18DSPc.2723G>A p.(Arg908His)BB.TB.T-0.10%289/25,1322Yes8/13No
19DSPc.2723G>Tp.(Arg908Leu)VUSB.TB.T-0.001%4/25,1322 Yes7/13No
20DSPc.2867A>Gp.(Asn956Ser)VUSB.TB.T-0.0004%1/24,8880 Yes3/13No
24DSPc.8498C>Gp.(Ser2833Cys)VUSB.TB.T-0.001%3/24,6912 Yes8/13No
25JUPc.1235C>Tp.(Thr412Met)VUSB.TB.T-0.0007%2/25,1412 No8/13No
26PKP2c.122C>Gp.(Ala41Gly)VUSA.TA.T-0.003%1/3,1346 No5/13No
27PKP2c.259G>Cp.(Val87Leu)VUSA.TA.T-0.001%3/25,1410 No9/13No
31PKP2c.1093A>Gp.(Met365Val)LBA.TA.T-0.02%67/25,1320 No2/13No
32PKP2c.1489C>Tp.(Arg497*)LPA.TA.TYes0.0009%2/21,7850 N/AN/A1
33PKP2c.1643delGp.(Gly548Valfs*15)LPN/AN/AYesNININ/AVery Strong>17 and no conflict
38TMEM43c.1026C>Gp.(Asp342Glu)VUSB.T B.T-NININo2/13No
Criteria and threshold based on Varsome. In grey meets criteria for pathogenicity. 1 Pathogenic non-VUS missense variants in gene (%). 2 Missense variant in a gene with a low rate of benign missense variation and in which missense variants are a common mechanism of disease.3 Loss of function is a well-established disease mechanism (premature termination codon (PTC) only). 4 Allele count for dominant gene threshold. 5 Located in a mutational hot spot and/or critical and well-established functional domain. 6 Computational evidence (conservation, evolutionary, splicing impact, etc.) using 13 in silico predictors for missense variants. AutoPVS1 used for intronic variants. 7 Reputable source recently reported variant as pathogenic in probands with consistent phenotypes (P). B.T, below threshold; A.T, above threshold; NI, allele not identified; N/A, data not available or variant does not meet criteria to apply indicator; MAF, minor allele frequency; VUS, variant of unknown significance; P, pathogenic; LP, likely pathogenic; LB, likely benign.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vallverdú-Prats, M.; Alcalde, M.; Sarquella-Brugada, G.; Cesar, S.; Arbelo, E.; Fernandez-Falgueras, A.; Coll, M.; Pérez-Serra, A.; Puigmulé, M.; Iglesias, A.; et al. Rare Variants Associated with Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy: Reclassification Five Years Later. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 162.

AMA Style

Vallverdú-Prats M, Alcalde M, Sarquella-Brugada G, Cesar S, Arbelo E, Fernandez-Falgueras A, Coll M, Pérez-Serra A, Puigmulé M, Iglesias A, et al. Rare Variants Associated with Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy: Reclassification Five Years Later. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021; 11(3):162.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vallverdú-Prats, Marta, Mireia Alcalde, Georgia Sarquella-Brugada, Sergi Cesar, Elena Arbelo, Anna Fernandez-Falgueras, Mónica Coll, Alexandra Pérez-Serra, Marta Puigmulé, Anna Iglesias, and et al. 2021. "Rare Variants Associated with Arrhythmogenic Cardiomyopathy: Reclassification Five Years Later" Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 3: 162.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop