Fixing several small documentation bugs

[ielis]

@julesjacobsen
The PR fixes several small inaccuracies in the documentation, mostly deviations from the protobuf schema.

Fixes #316, #339, #344, #350, #351

[pnrobinson]

Looks fine but there is not reason for the change in interpretation/Miller syndrome

[ielis]

Hi @pnrobinson
I will fix this soon, but there is one more thing I'd like to check. Should we italicize gene symbols? Currently, the documentation does not italicize human gene symbols.

[pnrobinson]

gene symbols should alsways be italicized!

[ielis]

@pnrobinson I went through the docs to italicize the gene symbols (where appropriate, not in a publication title, or in a hyperlink target) and while doing that I also fixed a few typos.

Please review, thank you!

[pnrobinson]

In this case the interpretationStatus should be CAUSAL, this was a published case!

[ielis]

Well, it may have been published, but is that relevant in the context of this example and, specifically, in the context of the previous paragraph?

Research consortia may exchange information about candidate genes in which an undisclosed
variant was found that was assessed to be possibly related to a disease or phenotype but
for which insufficient evidence is available to be certain. The intention is often to find
other researchers with similar cases in order to subsequently share detailed information in
a collaborative project.

Based on the table below, shouldn't the status be set to CANDIDATE, if "the research consortium found a variant with insufficient evidence"?

[pnrobinson]

Maybe it does not fit well with the description, but it si not wrong, I will merge

[pnrobinson]

One small change requested then we can merge!