Advertisement

Informing variant assessment using structured evidence from prior classifications (PS1, PM5, and PVS1 sequence variant interpretation criteria)

Published:October 28, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gim.2022.09.009

      Abstract

      Purpose

      This study aimed to explore whether evidence of pathogenicity from prior variant classifications in ClinVar could be used to inform variant interpretation using the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology clinical guidelines.

      Methods

      We identified distinct single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) that are either similar in location or in functional consequence to pathogenic variants in ClinVar and analyzed evidence in support of pathogenicity using 3 interpretation criteria.

      Results

      Thousands of variants, including many in clinically actionable disease genes (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics secondary findings v3.0), have evidence of pathogenicity from existing variant classifications, accounting for 2.5% of nonsynonymous SNVs within ClinVar. Notably, there are many variants with uncertain or conflicting classifications that cause the same amino acid substitution as other pathogenic variants (PS1, N = 323), variants that are predicted to cause different amino acid substitutions in the same codon as pathogenic variants (PM5, N = 7692), and loss-of-function variants that are present in genes in which many loss-of-function variants are classified as pathogenic (PVS1, N = 3635). Most of these variants have similar computational predictions of pathogenicity and splicing effect as their associated pathogenic variants.

      Conclusion

      Broadly, for >1.4 million SNVs exome wide, information from previously classified variants could be used to provide evidence of pathogenicity. We have developed a pipeline to identify variants meeting these criteria that may inform interpretation efforts.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      ACMG Member Login

      Are you an ACMG Member? Sign in for online access.

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Genetics in Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Green E.D.
        • Gunter C.
        • Biesecker L.G.
        • et al.
        Strategic vision for improving human health at The Forefront of Genomics.
        Nature. 2020; 586: 683-692https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2817-4
        • Richards S.
        • Aziz N.
        • Bale S.
        • et al.
        Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology.
        Genet Med. 2015; 17: 405-424https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.30
        • Rehm H.L.
        • Berg J.S.
        • Brooks L.D.
        • et al.
        ClinGen — the Clinical Genome Resource.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 2235-2242https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr1406261
        • Lek M.
        • Karczewski K.J.
        • Minikel E.V.
        • et al.
        Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans.
        Nature. 2016; 536: 285-291https://doi.org/10.1038/nature19057
        • MacArthur D.G.
        • Manolio T.A.
        • Dimmock D.P.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease.
        Nature. 2014; 508: 469-476https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13127
        • Walsh R.
        • Thomson K.L.
        • Ware J.S.
        • et al.
        Reassessment of Mendelian gene pathogenicity using 7,855 cardiomyopathy cases and 60,706 reference samples.
        Genet Med. 2017; 19: 192-203https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2016.90
        • Amendola L.M.
        • Jarvik G.
        • Leo M.
        • et al.
        Performance of ACMG-AMP variant-interpretation guidelines among nine laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.
        Am J Hum Genet. 2016; 98 (Published correction appears in Am J Hum Genet. 2016;99(1):247. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.03.024): 1067-1076
        • Brnich S.E.
        • Abou Tayoun A.N.
        • Couch F.J.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework.
        Genome Med. 2019; 12: 3https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-019-0690-2
        • Abou Tayoun A.N.
        • Pesaran T.
        • DiStefano M.T.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion.
        Hum Mutat. 2018; 39: 1517-1524https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.23626
        • Tavtigian S.V.
        • Greenblatt M.S.
        • Harrison S.M.
        • et al.
        Modeling the ACMG/AMP variant classification guidelines as a Bayesian classification framework.
        Genet Med. 2018; 20: 1054-1060https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.210
        • Strande N.T.
        • Brnich S.E.
        • Roman T.S.
        • Berg J.S.
        Navigating the nuances of clinical sequence variant interpretation in Mendelian disease.
        Genet Med. 2018; 20: 918-926https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0100-y
        • Nykamp K.
        • Anderson M.
        • Powers M.
        • et al.
        Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria.
        Genet Med. 2017; 19 (Published correction appears in Genet Med. 2020;22(1):240. http://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2017.37): 1105-1117
        • Harrison S.M.
        • Biesecker L.G.
        • Rehm H.L.
        Overview of specifications to the ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines.
        Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2019; 103: e93https://doi.org/10.1002/cphg.93
        • Clinical Genome Resource
        Sequence variant interpretation: SVI general recommendations for using ACMG/AMP criteria. Clinical Genome Resource.
        • Landrum M.J.
        • Lee J.M.
        • Riley G.R.
        • et al.
        ClinVar: public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype.
        Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42: D980-D985https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1113
        • Harrison S.M.
        • Rehm H.L.
        Is ‘likely pathogenic’ really 90% likely? Reclassification data in ClinVar.
        Genome Med. 2019; 11: 72https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-019-0688-9
        • Bonadies D.C.
        • Brierley K.L.
        • Barnett R.E.
        • et al.
        Adverse events in cancer genetic testing: the third case series.
        Cancer J. 2014; 20 (Published correction appears in Cancer J. 2014;20(5):367. http://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0000000000000057): 246-253
        • Makhnoon S.
        • Bednar E.M.
        • Krause K.J.
        • Peterson S.K.
        • Lopez-Olivo M.A.
        Clinical management among individuals with variant of uncertain significance in hereditary cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Clin Genet. 2021; 100: 119-131https://doi.org/10.1111/cge.13966
        • Liu X.
        • Li C.
        • Mou C.
        • Dong Y.
        • Tu Y.
        dbNSFP v4: a comprehensive database of transcript-specific functional predictions and annotations for human nonsynonymous and splice-site SNVs.
        Genome Med. 2020; 12: 103
        • Karczewski K.J.
        • Francioli L.C.
        • Tiao G.
        • et al.
        The mutational constraint spectrum quantified from variation in 141,456 humans.
        Nature. 2020; 581: 434-443
        • Rentzsch P.
        • Witten D.
        • Cooper G.M.
        • Shendure J.
        • Kircher M.
        CADD: predicting the deleteriousness of variants throughout the human genome.
        Nucleic Acids Res. 2019; 47: D886-D894https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1016
        • Jaganathan K.
        • Kyriazopoulou Panagiotopoulou S.
        • McRae J.F.
        • et al.
        Predicting splicing from primary sequence with deep learning.
        Cell. 2019; 176 (e24. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.12.015): 535-548
        • Findlay G.M.
        • Daza R.M.
        • Martin B.
        • et al.
        Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing.
        Nature. 2018; 562: 217-222https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0461-z
        • Miller D.T.
        • Lee K.
        • Chung W.K.
        • et al.
        ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG).
        Genet Med. 2021; 23 (Published correction appears in Genet Med. 2021;23(8):1582-1584. http://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-021-01172-3): 1381-1390
        • Cassa C.A.
        • Weghorn D.
        • Balick D.J.
        • et al.
        Estimating the selective effects of heterozygous protein-truncating variants from human exome data.
        Nat Genet. 2017; 49: 806-810https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3831
        • Association for Molecular Pathology
        Association for Molecular Pathology Position Statement: variant data sharing. Association for Molecular Pathology. Published July 29, 2021.
        (Updated December 3, 2021. Accessed June 29, 2022.)