BMC Genetics (Nov 2017)

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

  • Roman Shraga,
  • Sarah Yarnall,
  • Sonya Elango,
  • Arun Manoharan,
  • Sally Ann Rodriguez,
  • Sara L. Bristow,
  • Neha Kumar,
  • Mohammad Niknazar,
  • David Hoffman,
  • Shahin Ghadir,
  • Rita Vassena,
  • Serena H. Chen,
  • Avner Hershlag,
  • Jamie Grifo,
  • Oscar Puig

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-017-0570-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Keywords