BACKGROUND: Accurate evaluation of unclassified sequence variants in cancer predisposition genes is essential for clinical management and depends on a multifactorial analysis of clinical, genetic, pathologic, and bioinformatic variables and assays of transcript length and abundance. The integrity of assay data in turn relies on appropriate assay design, interpretation, and reporting. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter investigation to compare mRNA splicing assay protocols used by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. We compared similarities and differences in results derived from analysis of a panel of breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene variants known to alter splicing (BRCA1: c.135-1G>T, c.591C>T, c.594-2A>C, c.671-2A>G, and c.5467+5G>C and BRCA2: c.426-12_8delGTTTT, c.7988A>T, c.8632+1G>A, and c.9501+3A>T). Differences in protocols were then assessed to determine which elements were critical in reliable assay design. RESULTS: PCR primer design strategies, PCR conditions, and product detection methods, combined with a prior knowledge of expected alternative transcripts, were the key factors for accurate splicing assay results. For example, because of the position of primers and PCR extension times, several isoforms associated with BRCA1, c.594-2A>C and c.671-2A>G, were not detected by many sites. Variation was most evident for the detection of low-abundance transcripts (e.g., BRCA2 c.8632+1G>A Δ19,20 and BRCA1 c.135-1G>T Δ5q and Δ3). Detection of low-abundance transcripts was sometimes addressed by using more analytically sensitive detection methods (e.g., BRCA2 c.426-12_8delGTTTT ins18bp). CONCLUSIONS: We provide recommendations for best practice and raise key issues to consider when designing mRNA assays for evaluation of unclassified sequence variants.
BACKGROUND: Accurate evaluation of unclassified sequence variants in cancer predisposition genes is essential for clinical management and depends on a multifactorial analysis of clinical, genetic, pathologic, and bioinformatic variables and assays of transcript length and abundance. The integrity of assay data in turn relies on appropriate assay design, interpretation, and reporting. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter investigation to compare mRNA splicing assay protocols used by members of the ENIGMA (Evidence-Based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles) consortium. We compared similarities and differences in results derived from analysis of a panel of breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1) and breast cancer 2, early onset (BRCA2) gene variants known to alter splicing (BRCA1: c.135-1G>T, c.591C>T, c.594-2A>C, c.671-2A>G, and c.5467+5G>C and BRCA2: c.426-12_8delGTTTT, c.7988A>T, c.8632+1G>A, and c.9501+3A>T). Differences in protocols were then assessed to determine which elements were critical in reliable assay design. RESULTS: PCR primer design strategies, PCR conditions, and product detection methods, combined with a prior knowledge of expected alternative transcripts, were the key factors for accurate splicing assay results. For example, because of the position of primers and PCR extension times, several isoforms associated with BRCA1, c.594-2A>C and c.671-2A>G, were not detected by many sites. Variation was most evident for the detection of low-abundance transcripts (e.g., BRCA2 c.8632+1G>A Δ19,20 and BRCA1 c.135-1G>T Δ5q and Δ3). Detection of low-abundance transcripts was sometimes addressed by using more analytically sensitive detection methods (e.g., BRCA2c.426-12_8delGTTTT ins18bp). CONCLUSIONS: We provide recommendations for best practice and raise key issues to consider when designing mRNA assays for evaluation of unclassified sequence variants.
Authors: Daniel J Farrugia; Mukesh K Agarwal; Vernon S Pankratz; Amie M Deffenbaugh; Dmitry Pruss; Cynthia Frye; Linda Wadum; Kiley Johnson; Jennifer Mentlick; Sean V Tavtigian; David E Goldgar; Fergus J Couch Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: P Taberlet; S Griffin; B Goossens; S Questiau; V Manceau; N Escaravage; L P Waits; J Bouvet Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 1996-08-15 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: A A Tesoriero; E M Wong; M A Jenkins; J L Hopper; M A Brown; G Chenevix-Trench; A B Spurdle; M C Southey Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: P K Lovelock; S Healey; W Au; E Y M Sum; A Tesoriero; E M Wong; S Hinson; R Brinkworth; A Bekessy; O Diez; L Izatt; E Solomon; M Jenkins; H Renard; J Hopper; P Waring; S V Tavtigian; D Goldgar; G J Lindeman; J E Visvader; F J Couch; B R Henderson; M Southey; G Chenevix-Trench; A B Spurdle; M A Brown Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2005-05-27 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Xiaowei Chen; Tuyet-Trinh N Truong; JoEllen Weaver; Betsy A Bove; Kimberly Cattie; Brock A Armstrong; Mary B Daly; Andrew K Godwin Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: C Bonnet; S Krieger; M Vezain; A Rousselin; I Tournier; A Martins; P Berthet; A Chevrier; C Dugast; V Layet; A Rossi; R Lidereau; T Frébourg; A Hardouin; M Tosi Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2008-04-18 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Kathleen Claes; Bruce Poppe; Eva Machackova; Ilse Coene; Lenka Foretova; Anne De Paepe; Ludwine Messiaen Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: S A Gayther; W Warren; S Mazoyer; P A Russell; P A Harrington; M Chiano; S Seal; R Hamoudi; E J van Rensburg; A M Dunning; R Love; G Evans; D Easton; D Clayton; M R Stratton; B A Ponder Journal: Nat Genet Date: 1995-12 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Anne Ml Jansen; Heleen M van der Klift; Marieke Ae Roos; Jaap Dh van Eendenburg; Carli Mj Tops; Juul T Wijnen; Frederik J Hes; Hans Morreau; Tom van Wezel Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Julie Plaisancié; M Tarilonte; P Ramos; C Jeanton-Scaramouche; V Gaston; H Dollfus; D Aguilera; J Kaplan; L Fares-Taie; F Blanco-Kelly; C Villaverde; C Francannet; A Goldenberg; I Arroyo; J M Rozet; C Ayuso; N Chassaing; P Calvas; M Corton Journal: Hum Genet Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Atocha Romero; Francisco García-García; Irene López-Perolio; Gorka Ruiz de Garibay; José A García-Sáenz; Pilar Garre; Patricia Ayllón; Esperanza Benito; Joaquín Dopazo; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Trinidad Caldés; Miguel de la Hoya Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Phillip J Whiley; Michael T Parsons; Jennifer Leary; Kathy Tucker; Linda Warwick; Belinda Dopita; Heather Thorne; Sunil R Lakhani; David E Goldgar; Melissa A Brown; Amanda B Spurdle Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Miguel de la Hoya; Omar Soukarieh; Irene López-Perolio; Ana Vega; Logan C Walker; Yvette van Ierland; Diana Baralle; Marta Santamariña; Vanessa Lattimore; Juul Wijnen; Philip Whiley; Ana Blanco; Michela Raponi; Jan Hauke; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Alexandra Becker; Thomas V O Hansen; Raquel Behar; KConFaB Investigators; Diether Niederacher; Norbert Arnold; Bernd Dworniczak; Doris Steinemann; Ulrike Faust; Wendy Rubinstein; Peter J Hulick; Claude Houdayer; Sandrine M Caputo; Laurent Castera; Tina Pesaran; Elizabeth Chao; Carole Brewer; Melissa C Southey; Christi J van Asperen; Christian F Singer; Jan Sullivan; Nicola Poplawski; Phuong Mai; Julian Peto; Nichola Johnson; Barbara Burwinkel; Harald Surowy; Stig E Bojesen; Henrik Flyger; Annika Lindblom; Sara Margolin; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Paolo Radice; Laura Galastri; Janet E Olson; Emily Hallberg; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Irene L Andrulis; Gord Glendon; Per Hall; Kamila Czene; Fiona Blows; Mitul Shah; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Kyriaki Michailidou; Lesley McGuffog; Manjeet K Bolla; Antonis C Antoniou; Douglas F Easton; Fergus J Couch; Sean Tavtigian; Maaike P Vreeswijk; Michael Parsons; Huong D Meeks; Alexandra Martins; David E Goldgar; Amanda B Spurdle Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Heleen M van der Klift; Anne M L Jansen; Niki van der Steenstraten; Elsa C Bik; Carli M J Tops; Peter Devilee; Juul T Wijnen Journal: Mol Genet Genomic Med Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 2.183