Kristian A Groth1,2, Yskert Von Kodolitsch3, Kerstin Kutsche4, Mette Gaustadnes2, Kasper Thorsen2, Niels H Andersen1, Claus H Gravholt2,5. 1. Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Department of Molecular Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. German Aorta Centre of Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 4. Institute of Human Genetics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. 5. Department of Endocrinology and Internal Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic FBN1 testing is pivotal for confirming the clinical diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. In an effort to evaluate variant causality, FBN1 databases are often used. We evaluated the current databases regarding FBN1 variants and validated associated phenotype records with a new Marfan syndrome geno-phenotyping tool called the Marfan score. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated four databases (UMD-FBN1, ClinVar, the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD), and Uniprot) containing 2,250 FBN1 variants supported by 4,904 records presented in 307 references. The Marfan score calculated for phenotype data from the records quantified variant associations with Marfan syndrome phenotype. We calculated a Marfan score for 1,283 variants, of which we confirmed the database diagnosis of Marfan syndrome in 77.1%. This represented only 35.8% of the total registered variants; 18.5-33.3% (UMD-FBN1 versus HGMD) of variants associated with Marfan syndrome in the databases could not be confirmed by the recorded phenotype. CONCLUSION: FBN1 databases can be imprecise and incomplete. Data should be used with caution when evaluating FBN1 variants. At present, the UMD-FBN1 database seems to be the biggest and best curated; therefore, it is the most comprehensive database. However, the need for better genotype-phenotype curated databases is evident, and we hereby present such a database.Genet Med advance online publication 01 December 2016.
BACKGROUND: Genetic FBN1 testing is pivotal for confirming the clinical diagnosis of Marfan syndrome. In an effort to evaluate variant causality, FBN1 databases are often used. We evaluated the current databases regarding FBN1 variants and validated associated phenotype records with a new Marfan syndrome geno-phenotyping tool called the Marfan score. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated four databases (UMD-FBN1, ClinVar, the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD), and Uniprot) containing 2,250 FBN1 variants supported by 4,904 records presented in 307 references. The Marfan score calculated for phenotype data from the records quantified variant associations with Marfan syndrome phenotype. We calculated a Marfan score for 1,283 variants, of which we confirmed the database diagnosis of Marfan syndrome in 77.1%. This represented only 35.8% of the total registered variants; 18.5-33.3% (UMD-FBN1 versus HGMD) of variants associated with Marfan syndrome in the databases could not be confirmed by the recorded phenotype. CONCLUSION: FBN1 databases can be imprecise and incomplete. Data should be used with caution when evaluating FBN1 variants. At present, the UMD-FBN1 database seems to be the biggest and best curated; therefore, it is the most comprehensive database. However, the need for better genotype-phenotype curated databases is evident, and we hereby present such a database.Genet Med advance online publication 01 December 2016.
Authors: H C Dietz; G R Cutting; R E Pyeritz; C L Maslen; L Y Sakai; G M Corson; E G Puffenberger; A Hamosh; E J Nanthakumar; S M Curristin Journal: Nature Date: 1991-07-25 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Bart L Loeys; Harry C Dietz; Alan C Braverman; Bert L Callewaert; Julie De Backer; Richard B Devereux; Yvonne Hilhorst-Hofstee; Guillaume Jondeau; Laurence Faivre; Dianna M Milewicz; Reed E Pyeritz; Paul D Sponseller; Paul Wordsworth; Anne M De Paepe Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 6.318
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: L Faivre; G Collod-Beroud; B L Loeys; A Child; C Binquet; E Gautier; B Callewaert; E Arbustini; K Mayer; M Arslan-Kirchner; A Kiotsekoglou; P Comeglio; N Marziliano; H C Dietz; D Halliday; C Beroud; C Bonithon-Kopp; M Claustres; C Muti; H Plauchu; P N Robinson; L C Adès; A Biggin; B Benetts; M Brett; K J Holman; J De Backer; P Coucke; U Francke; A De Paepe; G Jondeau; C Boileau Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2007-07-25 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Sharon E Plon; Diana M Eccles; Douglas Easton; William D Foulkes; Maurizio Genuardi; Marc S Greenblatt; Frans B L Hogervorst; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Amanda B Spurdle; Sean V Tavtigian Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.878
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: Roland Stengl; András Bors; Bence Ágg; Miklós Pólos; Gabor Matyas; Mária Judit Molnár; Bálint Fekete; Dóra Csabán; Hajnalka Andrikovics; Béla Merkely; Tamás Radovits; Zoltán Szabolcs; Kálmán Benke Journal: Orphanet J Rare Dis Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 4.123