Emma H Wilcox1, Mahdi Sarmady2, Bryan Wulf3, Matt W Wright3, Heidi L Rehm4, Leslie G Biesecker5, Ahmad N Abou Tayoun6. 1. Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA. 2. Spark Therapeutics, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA. 4. Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA; Center for Genomic Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 5. Center for Precision Health Research, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 6. Al Jalila Genomics Center, Al Jalila Children's Specialty Hospital, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Center for Genomic Discovery, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Electronic address: Ahmad.Tayoun@ajch.ae.
Abstract
PURPOSE: According to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association of Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines, in silico evidence is applied at the supporting strength level for pathogenic (PP3) and benign (BP4) evidence. Although PP3 is commonly used, less is known about the effect of these criteria on variant classification outcomes. METHODS: A total of 727 missense variants curated by Clinical Genome Resource expert groups were analyzed to determine how often PP3 and BP4 were applied and their impact on variant classification. The ACMG/AMP categorical system of variant classification was compared with a quantitative point-based system. The pathogenicity likelihood ratios of REVEL, VEST, FATHMM, and MPC were calibrated using a gold standard set of 237 pathogenic and benign variants (classified independent of the PP3/BP4 criteria). RESULTS: The PP3 and BP4 criteria were applied by Variant Curation Expert Panels to 55% of missense variants. Application of those criteria changed the classification of 15% of missense variants for which either criterion was applied. The point-based system resolved borderline classifications. REVEL and VEST performed best at a strength level consistent with moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: We show that in silico criteria are commonly applied and often affect the final variant classifications. When appropriate thresholds for in silico predictors are established, our results show that PP3 and BP4 can be used at a moderate strength.
PURPOSE: According to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association of Medical Pathology (ACMG/AMP) guidelines, in silico evidence is applied at the supporting strength level for pathogenic (PP3) and benign (BP4) evidence. Although PP3 is commonly used, less is known about the effect of these criteria on variant classification outcomes. METHODS: A total of 727 missense variants curated by Clinical Genome Resource expert groups were analyzed to determine how often PP3 and BP4 were applied and their impact on variant classification. The ACMG/AMP categorical system of variant classification was compared with a quantitative point-based system. The pathogenicity likelihood ratios of REVEL, VEST, FATHMM, and MPC were calibrated using a gold standard set of 237 pathogenic and benign variants (classified independent of the PP3/BP4 criteria). RESULTS: The PP3 and BP4 criteria were applied by Variant Curation Expert Panels to 55% of missense variants. Application of those criteria changed the classification of 15% of missense variants for which either criterion was applied. The point-based system resolved borderline classifications. REVEL and VEST performed best at a strength level consistent with moderate evidence. CONCLUSION: We show that in silico criteria are commonly applied and often affect the final variant classifications. When appropriate thresholds for in silico predictors are established, our results show that PP3 and BP4 can be used at a moderate strength.
Authors: Laura M Amendola; Gail P Jarvik; Michael C Leo; Heather M McLaughlin; Yassmine Akkari; Michelle D Amaral; Jonathan S Berg; Sawona Biswas; Kevin M Bowling; Laura K Conlin; Greg M Cooper; Michael O Dorschner; Matthew C Dulik; Arezou A Ghazani; Rajarshi Ghosh; Robert C Green; Ragan Hart; Carrie Horton; Jennifer J Johnston; Matthew S Lebo; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Jeffrey Ou; Christine M Pak; Ronak Y Patel; Sumit Punj; Carolyn Sue Richards; Joseph Salama; Natasha T Strande; Yaping Yang; Sharon E Plon; Leslie G Biesecker; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Nilah M Ioannidis; Joseph H Rothstein; Vikas Pejaver; Sumit Middha; Shannon K McDonnell; Saurabh Baheti; Anthony Musolf; Qing Li; Emily Holzinger; Danielle Karyadi; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Craig C Teerlink; Janet L Stanford; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu; Kathleen A Cooney; Ethan M Lange; Johanna Schleutker; John D Carpten; Isaac J Powell; Olivier Cussenot; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Graham G Giles; Robert J MacInnis; Christiane Maier; Chih-Lin Hsieh; Fredrik Wiklund; William J Catalona; William D Foulkes; Diptasri Mandal; Rosalind A Eeles; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Carlos D Bustamante; Daniel J Schaid; Trevor Hastie; Elaine A Ostrander; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Predrag Radivojac; Stephen N Thibodeau; Alice S Whittemore; Weiva Sieh Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Kristy Lee; Kate Krempely; Maegan E Roberts; Michael J Anderson; Fatima Carneiro; Elizabeth Chao; Katherine Dixon; Joana Figueiredo; Rajarshi Ghosh; David Huntsman; Pardeep Kaurah; Chimene Kesserwan; Tyler Landrith; Shuwei Li; Arjen R Mensenkamp; Carla Oliveira; Carolina Pardo; Tina Pesaran; Matthew Richardson; Thomas P Slavin; Amanda B Spurdle; Mackenzie Trapp; Leora Witkowski; Charles S Yi; Liying Zhang; Sharon E Plon; Kasmintan A Schrader; Rachid Karam Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Cristina Fortuno; Kristy Lee; Magali Olivier; Tina Pesaran; Phuong L Mai; Kelvin C de Andrade; Laura D Attardi; Stephanie Crowley; D Gareth Evans; Bing-Jian Feng; Ann K M Foreman; Megan N Frone; Robert Huether; Paul A James; Kelly McGoldrick; Jessica Mester; Bryce A Seifert; Thomas P Slavin; Leora Witkowski; Liying Zhang; Sharon E Plon; Amanda B Spurdle; Sharon A Savage Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2020-12-25 Impact factor: 4.700
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Perry Evans; Chao Wu; Amanda Lindy; Dianalee A McKnight; Matthew Lebo; Mahdi Sarmady; Ahmad N Abou Tayoun Journal: Genome Res Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Hashem A Shihab; Julian Gough; David N Cooper; Peter D Stenson; Gary L A Barker; Keith J Edwards; Ian N M Day; Tom R Gaunt Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2012-11-02 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: Jennifer J Johnston; Robert T Dirksen; Thierry Girard; Stephen G Gonsalves; Philip M Hopkins; Sheila Riazi; Louis A Saddic; Nyamkhishig Sambuughin; Richa Saxena; Kathryn Stowell; James Weber; Henry Rosenberg; Leslie G Biesecker Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Chai-Ann Ng; Rizwan Ullah; Jessica Farr; Adam P Hill; Krystian A Kozek; Loren R Vanags; Devyn W Mitchell; Brett M Kroncke; Jamie I Vandenberg Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 11.043
Authors: Katherine V Sadler; Charlie F Rowlands; Philip T Smith; Claire L Hartley; Naomi L Bowers; Nicola Y Roberts; Jade L Harris; Andrew J Wallace; D Gareth Evans; Ludwine M Messiaen; Miriam J Smith Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 4.700