2016
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An openly available online tool for implementing the ACMG/AMP standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
91
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
(2 reference statements)
0
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One de novo missense mutation in the EPHB2 gene was identified in proband H42, and the mutation was predicted to be damaging by 10 bioinformatics tools. The EPHB2 gene is involved in retinal axon projections via interactions with ephrin-B proteins (52). In addition, it was reported that the growth cone collapse and axon retraction of retinal ganglion cells could be induced by EPHB2 gene expression (53).…”
Section: Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…One de novo missense mutation in the EPHB2 gene was identified in proband H42, and the mutation was predicted to be damaging by 10 bioinformatics tools. The EPHB2 gene is involved in retinal axon projections via interactions with ephrin-B proteins (52). In addition, it was reported that the growth cone collapse and axon retraction of retinal ganglion cells could be induced by EPHB2 gene expression (53).…”
Section: Significancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…We assessed the probability of pathogenicity of the variants found in the patients by analyzing the data from public databases, family analyses, and prediction algorithms 12,13 (Table 1; supplemental Table 2). …”
Section: Evaluation Of Pathogenicitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…12,13 Different computational algorithms were used for prediction of the effect of MECOM mutations on protein function: PROVEAN (Protein Variation Effect Analyzer), 14 SIFT (Sorting Intolerant From Tolerant), 15 Polyphen2, 16 and MutationTaster. 17 …”
Section: Evaluation Of Pathogenicitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recent studies [1, 4] suggests that a framework for organizing and communicating evidential support and the reasoning behind specific assessments of variant pathogenicity facilitates resolution of inter-laboratory discordances. However, currently available software systems and web services provide only rudimentary support for guideline-based reasoning [7] and do not facilitate full evidence tracking or collaborative resolution of discordances. They also do not enable guideline configuration to meet ACMG guideline specification and customization for specific genes and diseases, nor integration with existing variant curation systems.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%