Genomic uncertainty and genetic counsellors' professional authority

Kaufman, Rebecca; Timmermans, Stefan; Raz, Aviad E.

doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13582

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another significant challenge in genetic diagnostics is dealing with Variants of Uncertain Significance (VUS), whose health impacts are poorly understood. This issue is exacerbated in the context of rare diseases, where many genes and genetic variants remain under-studied and poorly documented, complicating clinical decision-making and raising ethical questions about how uncertainties should be communicated to patients (11,(13)(14)(15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A New Era in Missense Variant Analysis: Statistical Insights and the Introduction of VAMPP-Score for Pathogenicity Assessment

Aydin,

Ergun,

Akgun-Dogan

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clinical interpretation of missense variants is critically important in diagnostics due to their potential to cause mild-to-severe effects on phenotype by altering protein structure. Evaluating these variants is essential because they can significantly impact disease outcomes and patient management. Many computational predictors, known as in silico pathogenicity predictors (ISPPs), have been developed to support the assessment of variant pathogenicity. Despite the abundance of these ISPPs, their predictions often lack accuracy and consistency, primarily due to limited data availability and the presence of erroneous data. This inconsistency can lead to false positive or negative results in pathogenicity evaluation, highlighting the need for standardization. The necessity for reliable evaluation methods has driven the development of numerous ISPPs, each attempting to address different aspects of variant interpretation. However, the sheer number of ISPPs and their varied performances make it challenging to achieve consensus in predictions. Therefore, a comprehensive statistical approach to evaluate and integrate these predictors is essential to improve accuracy. Here, we present a comprehensive statistical analysis comparing 52 available ISPPs, which aims to enhance the precision of variant classification. Our work introduces the Variant Analysis with Multiple Pathogenicity Predictors-score (VAMPP-score), a novel statistical framework designed for the assessment of missense variants. The VAMPP-score leverages the best gene-ISPP matches based on ISPP accuracies, providing a combinatorial weighted score that improves missense variant interpretation. We chose to develop a statistical framework rather than creating a new ISPP to capitalize on the strengths of existing predictors and to address their limitations through an integrative approach. This approach not only improves the evaluation of missense variants but also offers a flexible statistical framework designed to identify and utilize the best-performing ISPPs. By enhancing the accuracy of genetic diagnostics, particularly in the reanalysis of rare and undiagnosed cases, our framework aims to improve patient outcomes and advance the field of genetic research.Our study employed a comprehensive workflow (Figure 1) to enhance the accuracy of genomic variant interpretation with in-silico pathogenicity predictor (ISPP) evaluation. This workflow led to three pivotal results:●ISPPs were categorized on their prediction approaches. This classification not only streamlined the analytical process but also enhanced the interpretability of predictor outputs.●Leveraging this categorization, we conducted a robust statistical analysis to evaluate the prediction accuracy and performance of each ISPP. Our findings revealed a significant correlation between the prediction approaches of the ISPPs and their predictive successes, confirming the utility of our categorization approach.●These insights enabled us to develop a novel scoring system—the VAMPP-score—which integrates ISPPs according to their performances.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%