Genetic variants in the SLC6A1 gene can cause a broad phenotypic disease spectrum by altering the protein function. Thus, systematically curated clinically relevant genotype-phenotype associations are needed to understand the disease mechanism and improve therapeutic decision-making. We aggregated genetic and clinical data from 172 individuals with likely pathogenic/pathogenic (lp/p) SLC6A1 variants and functional data for 184 variants (14.1% lp/p). Clinical and functional data were available for a subset of 126 individuals. We explored the potential associations of variant positions on the GAT1 3D structure with variant pathogenicity, altered molecular function and phenotype severity using bioinformatic approaches. The GAT1 transmembrane domains 1, 6 and extracellular loop 4 (EL4) were enriched for patient over population variants. Across functionally tested missense variants (n = 156), the spatial proximity from the ligand was associated with loss-of-function in the GAT1 transporter activity. For variants with complete loss of in vitro GABA uptake, we found a 4.6-fold enrichment in patients having severe disease versus non-severe disease (P = 2.9 × 10-3, 95% confidence interval: 1.5-15.3). In summary, we delineated associations between the 3D structure and variant pathogenicity, variant function and phenotype in SLC6A1-related disorders. This knowledge supports biology-informed variant interpretation and research on GAT1 function. All our data can be interactively explored in the SLC6A1 portal (https://slc6a1-portal.broadinstitute.org/).

While consensus regarding the return of secondary genomic findings in the clinical setting has been reached, debate about such findings in the research setting remains. We developed a hybrid, research-clinical translational genomics process for research exome data coupled with a CLIA-validated secondary findings analysis. Eleven intramural investigators from ten institutes at the National Institutes of Health piloted this process. Nearly 1,200 individuals were sequenced and 14 secondary findings were identified in 18 participants. Positive secondary findings were returned by a genetic counselor following a standardized protocol, including referrals for specialty follow-up care for the secondary finding local to the participants. Interviews were undertaken with 13 participants 4 months after receipt of a positive report. These participants reported minimal psychologic distress within a process to assimilate their results. Of the 13, 9 reported accessing the recommended health care services. A sample of 107 participants who received a negative findings report were surveyed 4 months after receiving it. They demonstrated good understanding of the negative secondary findings result and most expressed reassurance (64%) from that report. However, a notable minority (up to 17%) expressed confusion regarding the distinction of primary from secondary findings. This pilot shows it is feasible to couple CLIA-compliant secondary findings to research sequencing with minimal harms. Participants managed the surprise of a secondary finding with most following recommended follow up, yet some with negative findings conflated secondary and primary findings. Additional work is needed to understand barriers to follow-up care and help participants distinguish secondary from primary findings.