Consultation informs strategies to improve functional evidence use in variant classification
Villani, R. M.; Terrill, B.; Tudini, E.; McKenzie, M. E.; Cliffe, C. C.; Hahn, C. N.; Lundie, B.; Mattiske, T.; Mototek, E.; McEwen, A. E.; Nickerson, S. l.; Breen, J. M.; Fowler, D. M.; Christodoulou, J.; Starita, L.; Rubin, A. F.; Spurdle, A. B.
Show abstract
To determine if a variant identified by diagnostic genetic testing is causal for disease, applied genetics professionals evaluate all available evidence to assign a clinical classification. Experimental assay data can provide strong functional evidence for or against pathogenicity in variant classification, but appears to be underutilised. We surveyed genetic diagnostic professionals in Australasia to assess their application of functional evidence in clinical practice. Results indicated that survey respondents are not confident to apply functional evidence, mainly due to uncertainty around practice recommendations. Respondents also identified need for support resources, educational opportunities, and in particular requested expert recommendations and updated practice guidelines to improve translation of experimental data to curation evidence. As an initial step, we have collated a list of functional assays recommended by 19 ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels as a source of international expert opinion on functional evidence evaluation. Additional support resources for diagnostic practice are in development.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Distinct rates of VUS reclassification are observed when subclassifying VUS by evidence level 96%
- The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene-disease evidence resources 95%
- Specification of frequency criteria for secondary findings genes to improve variant classification concordance 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines for germline TP53 variants 93%
- AutoPVS1: An automatic classification tool for PVS1 interpretation of null variants 92%
- Using single molecule Molecular Inversion Probes as a cost-effective, high-throughput sequencing approach to target all genes and loci associated with macular diseases 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Variant Scientists in Genomic Medicine: Survey of Demographics, Training, Duties, and Professional Development 94%
- Concordance of whole-genome long-read sequencing with standard clinical testing for Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes 92%
- Clinical Validation and Diagnostic Utility of Optical Genome Mapping in Prenatal Diagnostic Testing 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Pooled Electronic Consultation Program to Improve Access to Genetics Specialists 93%
- Combined Bioinformatic and Splicing Analysis of Likely Benign Intronic and Synonymous Variants Reveals Evidence for Pathogenicity 92%
- Evaluation of DNA-poli: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial to assess a digital platform for family cascade genetic testing and predictive genetic counselling 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework 95%
- Evaluating Genome Sequencing Strategies: Trio, Singleton, and Standard Testing in Rare Disease Diagnosis 93%
- Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.