Dataset Information

Classification of BRCA1 missense variants of unknown clinical significance.

ABSTRACT:

Background

BRCA1 is a tumour suppressor with pleiotropic actions. Germline mutations in BRCA1 are responsible for a large proportion of breast-ovarian cancer families. Several missense variants have been identified throughout the gene but because of lack of information about their impact on the function of BRCA1, predictive testing is not always informative. Classification of missense variants into deleterious/high risk or neutral/low clinical significance is essential to identify individuals at risk.

Objective

To investigate a panel of missense variants.

Methods and results

The panel was investigated in a comprehensive framework that included (1) a functional assay based on transcription activation; (2) segregation analysis and a method of using incomplete pedigree data to calculate the odds of causality; (3) a method based on interspecific sequence variation. It was shown that the transcriptional activation assay could be used as a test to characterise mutations in the carboxy-terminus region of BRCA1 encompassing residues 1396-1863. Thirteen missense variants (H1402Y, L1407P, H1421Y, S1512I, M1628T, M1628V, T1685I, G1706A, T1720A, A1752P, G1788V, V1809F, and W1837R) were specifically investigated.

Conclusions

While individual classification schemes for BRCA1 alleles still present limitations, a combination of several methods provides a more powerful way of identifying variants that are causally linked to a high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The framework presented here brings these variants nearer to clinical applicability.

SUBMITTER: Phelan CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1735988 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of next-generation sequencing approaches in clinical diagnostics has led to a tremendous increase in data and a vast number of variants of uncertain significance that require interpretation. Therefore, prediction of the effects of missense mutations using in silico tools has become a frequently used approach. Aim of this study was to assess the reliability of in silico prediction as a basis for clinical decision making in the context of hereditary breast and/or ovarian cancer. METHODS:We tested the performance of four prediction tools (Align-GVGD, SIFT, PolyPhen-2, MutationTaster2) using a set of 236 BRCA1/2 missense variants that had previously been classified by expert committees. However, a major pitfall in the creation of a reliable evaluation set for our purpose is the generally accepted classification of BRCA1/2 missense variants using the multifactorial likelihood model, which is partially based on Align-GVGD results. To overcome this drawback we identified 161 variants whose classification is independent of any previous in silico prediction. In addition to the performance as stand-alone tools we examined the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of combined approaches. RESULTS:PolyPhen-2 achieved the lowest sensitivity (0.67), specificity (0.67), accuracy (0.67) and MCC (0.39). Align-GVGD achieved the highest values of specificity (0.92), accuracy (0.92) and MCC (0.73), but was outperformed regarding its sensitivity (0.90) by SIFT (1.00) and MutationTaster2 (1.00). All tools suffered from poor specificities, resulting in an unacceptable proportion of false positive results in a clinical setting. This shortcoming could not be bypassed by combination of these tools. In the best case scenario, 138 families would be affected by the misclassification of neutral variants within the cohort of patients of the German Consortium for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer. CONCLUSION:We show that due to low specificities state-of-the-art in silico prediction tools are not suitable to predict pathogenicity of variants of uncertain significance in BRCA1/2. Thus, clinical consequences should never be based solely on in silico forecasts. However, our data suggests that SIFT and MutationTaster2 could be suitable to predict benignity, as both tools did not result in false negative predictions in our analysis.