公开知识文档

Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines.

Background The American College of Medical Genetics and American College of Pathologists (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guidelines for clinical reporting are widely used in diagnostic laboratories for variant interpretation. The ACMG/AMP guidelines recommend complete concordance of predictions among all in silico algorithms used without specifying the number or types of algorithms. The subjective nature of this recommendation contributes to discordance of variant classification among clinical laboratories and prevents definitive classification of variants. Results Using 14,819 benign or pathogenic missense variants from the ClinVar database, we compared performance of 25 algorithms across datasets differing in distinct biological and technical variables. There was wide variability in concordance among different combinations of algorithms with particularly low concordance for benign variants. We also identify a previously unreported source of error in variant interpretation (false co

Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines.

> 商业许可源文 · EUROPE_PMC · [CC-BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)

书目信息

  • 引用:Ghosh R, Oak N, Plon SE. (2017). Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines. Genome biology. PMID 29179779 · PMC5704597 · DOI 10.1186/s13059-017-1353-5
  • 证据类型:GUIDELINE
  • 主题:genome-variation
  • 被引次数(采集时):188
  • 原始记录:[Europe PMC](https://europepmc.org/article/MED/29179779)
  • 来源许可:[CC-BY](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/)
  • 作者摘要(按来源许可复用)

    Background The American College of Medical Genetics and American College of Pathologists (ACMG/AMP) variant classification guidelines for clinical reporting are widely used in diagnostic laboratories for variant interpretation. The ACMG/AMP guidelines recommend complete concordance of predictions among all in silico algorithms used without specifying the number or types of algorithms. The subjective nature of this recommendation contributes to discordance of variant classification among clinical laboratories and prevents definitive classification of variants. Results Using 14,819 benign or pathogenic missense variants from the ClinVar database, we compared performance of 25 algorithms across datasets differing in distinct biological and technical variables. There was wide variability in concordance among different combinations of algorithms with particularly low concordance for benign variants. We also identify a previously unreported source of error in variant interpretation (false concordance) where concordant in silico predictions are opposite to the evidence provided by other sources. We identified recently developed algorithms with high predictive power and robust to variables such as disease mechanism, gene constraint, and mode of inheritance, although poorer performing algorithms are more frequently used based on review of the clinical genetics literature (2011-2017). Conclusions Our analyses identify algorithms with high performance characteristics independent of underlying disease mechanisms. We describe combinations of algorithms with increased concordance that should improve in silico algorithm usage during assessment of clinically relevant variants using the ACMG/AMP guidelines.

    合规说明

    本页保存的是来源文献书目信息及其在 CC-BY 许可下公开的作者摘要。除去除来源 HTML 标签和规范化空白外,摘要未作内容改写。本页不代表 GeniOmics 的医学建议;原文版权、署名和许可仍归原权利人,请通过原始记录核对最新版本、更正或撤稿状态。

    Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG/AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines. · GeniOmics