2019
DOI: 10.1101/709428
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework

Abstract: Background:The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria (PS3/BS3) for functional assays that specified a "strong" level of evidence. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes is a contributor to variant interpretation discordance between laboratories. This recommendation seeks to pr… Show more

Help me understand this report
View published versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
193
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 98 publications
(194 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
193
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We demonstrate that massively parallel functional assays can accurately measure the impacts of variants in the key Lynch Syndrome gene MSH2. This functional effect map, if rationally combined 54,91 with other lines of clinical evidence 9 , will enable more accurate classification of Lynch Syndrome variants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We demonstrate that massively parallel functional assays can accurately measure the impacts of variants in the key Lynch Syndrome gene MSH2. This functional effect map, if rationally combined 54,91 with other lines of clinical evidence 9 , will enable more accurate classification of Lynch Syndrome variants.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bioinformatic tools are frequently used to interpret clinical variants when other forms of evidence, such as co-segregation with disease, functional studies, or population variant allele frequency, are unavailable or uninformative54 . We compared the classification performance of our LOF scores with that of six computational predictors, including three specific to MMR genes: MAPP-MMR 55 , FoldX 56 thermostability predictions from Nielsen et al38 and PON-MMR57 , and three general-purpose tools REVEL 35 , CADD58 , and PolyPhen2 34 .…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A crucial aspect for a proper evaluation of the sequence variants is represented by the choice of appropriate functional studies. Although recommendations have been recently issued to provide a detailed guidance on the evaluation of functional data [143,144], for the large genes discussed here, we do not have a general agreement on the assays providing sufficient evidence. Moreover, the large size of the coding region is a considerable issue for specific applications (e.g.…”
Section: Final Considerations and Future Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…The advantage of in vitro studies is that the impact of different variants can be compared without the need to consider the genetic background of the assay. Indeed, recent guidelines on assigning functional evidence scores (PS3/BS3) in the ACMG classification framework treat these two lines of evidence differently and recommend using PP4 score for patient‐derived data, while assigning PS3/BS3 for evidence obtained from validated in vitro functional assays (Brnich et al, 2019).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%