Aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (AADC) deficiency is a rare autosomal recessive genetic disorder affecting the biosynthesis of dopamine, a precursor of both norepinephrine and epinephrine, and serotonin. Diagnosis is based on the analysis of CSF or plasma metabolites, AADC activity in plasma and genetic testing for variants in the DDC gene. The exact prevalence of AADC deficiency, the number of patients, and the variant and genotype prevalence are not known. Here, we present the DDC variant (n = 143) and genotype (n = 151) prevalence of 348 patients with AADC deficiency, 121 of whom were previously not reported. In addition, we report 26 new DDC variants, classify them according to the ACMG/AMP/ACGS recommendations for pathogenicity and score them based on the predicted structural effect. The splice variant c.714+4A>T, with a founder effect in Taiwan and China, was the most common variant (allele frequency = 32.4%), and c.[714+4A>T];[714+4A>T] was the most common genotype (genotype frequency = 21.3%). Approximately 90% of genotypes had variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic, while 7% had one VUS allele and 3% had two VUS alleles. Only one benign variant was reported. Homozygous and compound heterozygous genotypes were interpreted in terms of AADC protein and categorized as: i) devoid of full-length AADC, ii) bearing one type of AADC homodimeric variant or iii) producing an AADC protein population composed of two homodimeric and one heterodimeric variant. Based on structural features, a score was attributed for all homodimers, and a tentative prediction was advanced for the heterodimer. Almost all AADC protein variants were pathogenic or likely pathogenic.
The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as "maybe report" after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.