Dataset Information

Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion.

ABSTRACT: The 2015 ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation guideline provided a framework for classifying variants based on several benign and pathogenic evidence criteria, including a pathogenic criterion (PVS1) for predicted loss of function variants. However, the guideline did not elaborate on specific considerations for the different types of loss of function variants, nor did it provide decision-making pathways assimilating information about variant type, its location, or any additional evidence for the likelihood of a true null effect. Furthermore, this guideline did not take into account the relative strengths for each evidence type and the final outcome of their combinations with respect to PVS1 strength. Finally, criteria specifying the genes for which PVS1 can be applied are still missing. Here, as part of the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Workgroup's goal of refining ACMG/AMP criteria, we provide recommendations for applying the PVS1 criterion using detailed guidance addressing the above-mentioned gaps. Evaluation of the refined criterion by seven disease-specific groups using heterogeneous types of loss of function variants (n = 56) showed 89% agreement with the new recommendation, while discrepancies in six variants (11%) were appropriately due to disease-specific refinements. Our recommendations will facilitate consistent and accurate interpretation of predicted loss of function variants.

SUBMITTER: Abou Tayoun AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6185798 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion.

Abou Tayoun Ahmad N AN Pesaran Tina T DiStefano Marina T MT Oza Andrea A Rehm Heidi L HL Biesecker Leslie G LG Harrison Steven M SM

Human mutation 20180907 11

The 2015 ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation guideline provided a framework for classifying variants based on several benign and pathogenic evidence criteria, including a pathogenic criterion (PVS1) for predicted loss of function variants. However, the guideline did not elaborate on specific considerations for the different types of loss of function variants, nor did it provide decision-making pathways assimilating information about variant type, its location, or any additional evidence for ...[more]

PMID: 30192042

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria for different types of evidence. This includes the strong evidence codes PS3 and BS3 for "well-established" functional assays demonstrating a variant has abnormal or normal gene/protein function, respectively. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes are a contributor to variant interpretation discordance between laboratories. This recommendation seeks to provide a more structured approach to the assessment of functional assays for variant interpretation and guidance on the use of various levels of strength based on assay validation. METHODS:The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group used curated functional evidence from ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel-developed rule specifications and expert opinions to refine the PS3/BS3 criteria over multiple in-person and virtual meetings. We estimated the odds of pathogenicity for assays using various numbers of variant controls to determine the minimum controls required to reach moderate level evidence. Feedback from the ClinGen Steering Committee and outside experts were incorporated into the recommendations at multiple stages of development. RESULTS:The SVI Working Group developed recommendations for evaluators regarding the assessment of the clinical validity of functional data and a four-step provisional framework to determine the appropriate strength of evidence that can be applied in clinical variant interpretation. These steps are as follows: (1) define the disease mechanism, (2) evaluate the applicability of general classes of assays used in the field, (3) evaluate the validity of specific instances of assays, and (4) apply evidence to individual variant interpretation. We found that a minimum of 11 total pathogenic and benign variant controls are required to reach moderate-level evidence in the absence of rigorous statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS:The recommendations and approach to functional evidence evaluation described here should help clarify the clinical variant interpretation process for functional assays. Further, we hope that these recommendations will help develop productive partnerships with basic scientists who have developed functional assays that are useful for interrogating the function of a variety of genes.

Dataset Information

Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion.

Publications

Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets