Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Tamana S, Xenophontos M, Minaidou A, Stephanou C, Harteveld CL, Bento C, et al.
    Elife, 2022 Dec 01;11.
    PMID: 36453528 DOI: 10.7554/eLife.79713
    Haemoglobinopathies are the commonest monogenic diseases worldwide and are caused by variants in the globin gene clusters. With over 2400 variants detected to date, their interpretation using the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines is challenging and computational evidence can provide valuable input about their functional annotation. While many in silico predictors have already been developed, their performance varies for different genes and diseases. In this study, we evaluate 31 in silico predictors using a dataset of 1627 variants in HBA1, HBA2, and HBB. By varying the decision threshold for each tool, we analyse their performance (a) as binary classifiers of pathogenicity and (b) by using different non-overlapping pathogenic and benign thresholds for their optimal use in the ACMG/AMP framework. Our results show that CADD, Eigen-PC, and REVEL are the overall top performers, with the former reaching moderate strength level for pathogenic prediction. Eigen-PC and REVEL achieve the highest accuracies for missense variants, while CADD is also a reliable predictor of non-missense variants. Moreover, SpliceAI is the top performing splicing predictor, reaching strong level of evidence, while GERP++ and phyloP are the most accurate conservation tools. This study provides evidence about the optimal use of computational tools in globin gene clusters under the ACMG/AMP framework.
  2. Kountouris P, Stephanou C, Lederer CW, Traeger-Synodinos J, Bento C, Harteveld CL, et al.
    Hum Mutat, 2022 Aug;43(8):1089-1096.
    PMID: 34510646 DOI: 10.1002/humu.24280
    Accurate and consistent interpretation of sequence variants is integral to the delivery of safe and reliable diagnostic genetic services. To standardize the interpretation process, in 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published a joint guideline based on a set of shared standards for the classification of variants in Mendelian diseases. The generality of these standards and their subjective interpretation between laboratories has prompted efforts to reduce discordance of variant classifications, with a focus on the expert specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for individual genes or diseases. Herein, we describe our experience as a ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel to adapt the ACMG/AMP criteria for the classification of variants in three globin genes (HBB, HBA2, and HBA1) related to recessively inherited hemoglobinopathies, including five evidence categories, as use cases demonstrating the process of specification and the underlying rationale.
  3. Houge G, Bratland E, Aukrust I, Tveten K, Žukauskaitė G, Sansovic I, et al.
    Eur J Hum Genet, 2024 Jul;32(7):858-863.
    PMID: 38778080 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-024-01617-8
    The ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as "maybe report" after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links