PURPOSE: Genetic testing has shifted from academic laboratories with expertise in specific genes to commercial laboratories that offer tests of a diverse array of genes. The purpose of this comparative study was to determine whether one academic laboratory's model of variant interpretation is similar to that of several commercial laboratories. METHODS: The Collagen Diagnostic Laboratory (CDL) received, over a 14-month period, 38 requests to interpret variants originally identified by an outside laboratory (OL). The interpretations by the OL and CDL were compared and discrepancies were assessed. RESULTS: Interpretations from the OL and CDL were concordant in 11 inquiries (29%); discrepancies were moderate in 11 instances (29%) and significant in 16 (42%). Factors that caused discrepancies included the following: (i) private data were not shared in a public database (n = 9); (ii) publicly available allele frequency data were not referenced and used as evidence (n = 5); and (iii) important aspects of protein structure and function were not taken into account (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive interpretation of sequence variants depends on good functional tests and well-curated variant databases. Provision of clinical information to the clinical laboratory, mandatory submission of identified variants with phenotype data to common resources, and collaboration between clinical laboratories and recognized experts is likely to improve consistency in variant interpretation among clinical laboratories.Genet Med 18 1, 20-24.
PURPOSE: Genetic testing has shifted from academic laboratories with expertise in specific genes to commercial laboratories that offer tests of a diverse array of genes. The purpose of this comparative study was to determine whether one academic laboratory's model of variant interpretation is similar to that of several commercial laboratories. METHODS: The Collagen Diagnostic Laboratory (CDL) received, over a 14-month period, 38 requests to interpret variants originally identified by an outside laboratory (OL). The interpretations by the OL and CDL were compared and discrepancies were assessed. RESULTS: Interpretations from the OL and CDL were concordant in 11 inquiries (29%); discrepancies were moderate in 11 instances (29%) and significant in 16 (42%). Factors that caused discrepancies included the following: (i) private data were not shared in a public database (n = 9); (ii) publicly available allele frequency data were not referenced and used as evidence (n = 5); and (iii) important aspects of protein structure and function were not taken into account (n = 13). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive interpretation of sequence variants depends on good functional tests and well-curated variant databases. Provision of clinical information to the clinical laboratory, mandatory submission of identified variants with phenotype data to common resources, and collaboration between clinical laboratories and recognized experts is likely to improve consistency in variant interpretation among clinical laboratories.Genet Med 18 1, 20-24.
Authors: Amanda B Spurdle; Sue Healey; Andrew Devereau; Frans B L Hogervorst; Alvaro N A Monteiro; Katherine L Nathanson; Paolo Radice; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Sean Tavtigian; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Fergus J Couch; David E Goldgar Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Gwenaëlle Collod-Béroud; Saga Le Bourdelles; Lesley Ades; Leena Ala-Kokko; Patrick Booms; Maureen Boxer; Anne Child; Paolo Comeglio; Anne De Paepe; James C Hyland; Katerine Holman; Ilkka Kaitila; Bart Loeys; Gabor Matyas; Lieve Nuytinck; Leena Peltonen; Terhi Rantamaki; Peter Robinson; Beat Steinmann; Claudine Junien; Christophe Béroud; Catherine Boileau Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Karen D Tsuchiya; Lisa G Shaffer; Swaroop Aradhya; Julie M Gastier-Foster; Ankita Patel; M Katharine Rudd; Julie Sanford Biggerstaff; Warren G Sanger; Stuart Schwartz; James H Tepperberg; Erik C Thorland; Beth A Torchia; Arthur R Brothman Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Goncalo R Abecasis; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Mark A DePristo; Richard M Durbin; Robert E Handsaker; Hyun Min Kang; Gabor T Marth; Gil A McVean Journal: Nature Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Melissa J Landrum; Jennifer M Lee; George R Riley; Wonhee Jang; Wendy S Rubinstein; Deanna M Church; Donna R Maglott Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Kathryn B Garber; Lisa M Vincent; John J Alexander; Lora J H Bean; Sherri Bale; Madhuri Hegde Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Lydia D Hellwig; Barbara B Biesecker; Katie L Lewis; Leslie G Biesecker; Cynthia A James; William M P Klein Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2018-06
Authors: Bianca M Augusto; Paige Lake; Courtney L Scherr; Fergus J Couch; Noralane M Lindor; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Community Genet Date: 2017-11-09
Authors: Andrea M Oza; Marina T DiStefano; Sarah E Hemphill; Brandon J Cushman; Andrew R Grant; Rebecca K Siegert; Jun Shen; Alex Chapin; Nicole J Boczek; Lisa A Schimmenti; Jaclyn B Murry; Linda Hasadsri; Kiyomitsu Nara; Margaret Kenna; Kevin T Booth; Hela Azaiez; Andrew Griffith; Karen B Avraham; Hannie Kremer; Heidi L Rehm; Sami S Amr; Ahmad N Abou Tayoun Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.878