본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Challenges and Considerations in Sequence Variant Interpretation for Mendelian Disorders

기창석|장미애|김영은
대한진단검사의학회 (Korean Society For Laboratory Medicine)|2019.09|Annals of Laboratory Medicine|제39권 제5호|pp. 421-429|DOI 10.3343/alm.2019.39.5.421

2

조회

0

다운로드

3

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG)Mendelian disorderVariant interpretation
주제분류병리학

초록

In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), together with the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), published the latest guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants, which have been widely adopted into clinical practice. Despite these standardized efforts, the degrees of subjectivity and uncertainty allowed by the guidelines can lead to inconsistent variant classification across clinical laboratories, making it difficult to assess the pathogenicity of identified variants. We describe the critical elements of variant interpretation processes and potential pitfalls through practical examples and provide updated information based on a review of recent literature. The variant classification we describe is meant to be applicable to sequence variants for Mendelian disorders, whether identified by single-gene tests, multi-gene panels, exome sequencing, or genome sequencing. Continuing efforts to improve the reproducibility and objectivity of sequence variant interpretation across individuals and laboratories are needed.

Abstract

In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG), together with the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP), published the latest guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants, which have been widely adopted into clinical practice. Despite these standardized efforts, the degrees of subjectivity and uncertainty allowed by the guidelines can lead to inconsistent variant classification across clinical laboratories, making it difficult to assess the pathogenicity of identified variants. We describe the critical elements of variant interpretation processes and potential pitfalls through practical examples and provide updated information based on a review of recent literature. The variant classification we describe is meant to be applicable to sequence variants for Mendelian disorders, whether identified by single-gene tests, multi-gene panels, exome sequencing, or genome sequencing. Continuing efforts to improve the reproducibility and objectivity of sequence variant interpretation across individuals and laboratories are needed.

참고문헌 (52)

  1. Vears DF, "Reporting practices for variants of uncertain significance from next generation sequencing technologies", Eur J Med Genet, 60, pp.553~558 (2017)
  2. Kazazian HH, "ACMG recommendation for standards for interpretation of sequence variations", Genet Med, 2, pp.302~303 (2000)
  3. Richards CS, "ACMG recommendations for standards for interpretation and reporting of sequence variations : Revisions 2007", Genet Med, 10, pp.294~300 (2008)
  4. Richards S, "Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants : a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology", Genet Med, 17, pp.405~424 (2015)
  5. Harrison SM, "Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar", Genet Med, 19, pp.1096~1104 (2017)
  6. Balmaña J, "Conflicting interpretation of genetic variants and cancer risk by commercial laboratories as assessed by the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing", J Clin Oncol, 34, pp.4071~4078 (2016)
  7. Amendola LM, "Performance of ACMG-AMP variant-interpretation guidelines among nine laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium", Am J Hum Genet, 98, pp.1067~1076 (2016)
  8. Pepin MG, "The challenge of comprehensive and consistent sequence variant interpretation between clinical laboratories", Genet Med, 18, pp.20~24 (2016)
  9. Hoskinson DC, "The current state of clinical interpretation of sequence variants", Curr Opin Genet Dev, 42, pp.33~39 (2017)
  10. Nykamp K, "Sherloc : a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG-AMP variant classification criteria", Genet Med, 19, pp.1105~1117 (2017)
  11. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, "A global reference for human genetic variation", Nature, 526, pp.68~74 (2015)
  12. Tennessen JA, "Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes", Science, 337, pp.64~69 (2012)
  13. Lek M, "Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60, 706 humans", Nature, 536, pp.285~291 (2016)
  14. 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, "A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing", Nature, 467, pp.1061~1073 (2010)
  15. Norton N, "Evaluating pathogenicity of rare variants from dilated cardiomyopathy in the exome era", Circ Cardiovasc Genet, 5, pp.167~174 (2012)
  16. Shearer AE, "Utilizing ethnic-specific differences in minor allele frequency to recategorize reported pathogenic deafness variants", Am J Hum Genet, 95, pp.445~453 (2014)
  17. Kobayashi Y, "Pathogenic variant burden in the ExAC database : an empirical approach to evaluating population data for clinical variant interpretation", Genome Med, 9, pp.13~ (2017)
  18. Duzkale H, "A systematic approach to assessing the clinical significance of genetic variants", Clin Genet, 84, pp.453~463 (2013)
  19. Whiffin N, "Using high-resolution variant frequencies to empower clinical genome interpretation", Genet Med, 19, pp.1151~1158 (2017)
  20. Kelly MA, "Adaptation and validation of the ACMG", AMP variant classification framework for MYH7-associated inherited cardiomyopathies : recommendations by ClinGen’s Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel, 2018, pp.20, 351~359
  21. Jang MA, "Frequency of the moyamoya-related RNF213 p.Arg4810Lys variant in 1,516 Korean individuals", BMC Med Genet, 16, pp.109~ (2015)
  22. Tabor HK, "Pathogenic variants for Mendelian and complex traits in exomes of 6, 517 European and African Americans : implications for the return of incidental results", Am J Hum Genet, 95, pp.183~193 (2014)
  23. 박지수, "Identification of a Novel BRCA1 Pathogenic Mutation in Korean Patients Following Reclassification of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variants According to the ACMG Standards and Guidelines Using Relevant Ethnic Controls", Cancer Research and Treatment, 49(4), pp.1012~1021 (2017), 대한암학회
  24. Kim YE, "Spectrum of NOTCH3 mutations in Korean patients with clinically suspicious cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy", Neurobiol Aging, 35, pp.726.e1~726.e6 (2014)[DOI]
  25. Muiño E, "Systematic review of cysteine-sparing NOTCH3 missense mutations in patients with clinical suspicion of CADASIL", Int J Mol Sci, 18, pp.E1964~ (2017)
  26. Ghosh R, "Evaluation of in silico algorithms for use with ACMG", AMP clinical variant interpretation guidelines, 2017, pp.18, 225~
  27. 이재웅, "Genetic Profiles of Korean Patients With Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase Deficiency", Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 37(2), pp.108~116 (2017), 대한진단검사의학회
  28. Adzhubei IA, "A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations", Nat Methods, 7, pp.248~249 (2010)
  29. Ng PC, "SIFT : Predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function", Nucleic Acids Res, 31, pp.3812~3814 (2003)
  30. Choi Y, "Predicting the functional effect of amino acid substitutions and indels", PLoS One, 7, pp.e46688~ (2012)
  31. Thusberg J, "Performance of mutation pathogenicity prediction methods on missense variants", Hum Mutat, 32, pp.358~368 (2011)
  32. Tang H, "Tools for predicting the functional impact of nonsynonymous genetic variation", Genetics, 203, pp.635~647 (2016)
  33. Grimm DG, "The evaluation of tools used to predict the impact of missense variants is hindered by two types of circularity", Hum Mutat, 36, pp.513~523 (2015)
  34. Maxwell KN, "Evaluation of ACMG-guideline-based variant classification of cancer susceptibility and non-cancer-associated genes in families affected by breast cancer", Am J Hum Genet, 98, pp.801~817 (2016)
  35. Sosnay PR, "Defining the disease liability of variants in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene", Nat Genet, 45, pp.1160~1167 (2013)
  36. Kircher M, "A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants", Nat Genet, 46, pp.310~315 (2014)
  37. Liu X, "dbNSFP : a lightweight database of human nonsynonymous SNPs and their functional predictions", Hum Mutat, 32, pp.894~899 (2011)
  38. Jagadeesh KA, "M-CAP eliminates a majority of variants of uncertain significance in clinical exomes at high sensitivity", Nat Genet, 48, pp.1581~1586 (2016)
  39. Carter H, "Identifying Mendelian disease genes with the variant effect scoring tool", BMC Genomics, 14(S3), pp.S3~ (2013)
  40. Ioannidis NM, "REVEL : an ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of rare missense variants", Am J Hum Genet, 99, pp.877~885 (2016)
  41. Dong C, "Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies", Hum Mol Genet, 24, pp.2125~2137 (2015)
  42. 최재철, "Cerebral Autosomal Dominant Arteriopathy with Subcortical Infarcts and Leukoencephalopathy: A Genetic Cause of Cerebral Small Vessel Disease", Journal of Clinical Neurology, 6(1), pp.1~9 (2010), 대한신경과학회
  43. Chabriat H, "Cadasil", Lancet Neurol, 8, pp.643~653 (2009)
  44. Jarvik GP, "Consideration of cosegregation in the pathogenicity classification of genomic variants", Am J Hum Genet, 98, pp.1077~1081 (2016)
  45. MacArthur DG, "Guidelines for investigating causality of sequence variants in human disease", Nature, 508, pp.469~476 (2014)
  46. Gelb BD, "ClinGen’s RASopathy Expert Panel consensus methods for variant interpretation", Genet Med, 20, pp.1334~1345 (2018)
  47. Strande NT, "Navigating the nuances of clinical sequence variant interpretation in Mendelian disease", Genet Med, 20, pp.918~926 (2018)
  48. Rehm HL, "ClinGen–the clinical genome resource", N Engl J Med, 372, pp.2235~2242 (2015)
  49. Landrum MJ, "ClinVar : public archive of relationships among sequence variation and human phenotype", Nucleic Acids Res, 42, pp.D980~D985 (2014)
  50. Li Q, "InterVar : Clinical interpretation of genetic variants by the 2015 ACMG-AMP guidelines", Am J Hum Genet, 100, pp.267~280 (2017)
  51. Li Z, "mirVAFC : A web server for prioritizations of pathogenic sequence variants from exome sequencing data via classifications", Hum Mutat, 38, pp.25~33 (2017)
  52. "The human genomics variant search engine (VarSome)" (2018)[URL]

관련 논문AI추천

[Erratum]Challenges and Considerations in Sequence Variant Interpretation for Mendelian Disorders기창석, 김영은, 장미애대한진단검사의학회 · Annals of Laboratory Medicine2019 · 제39권 제6호Navigating the landscape of clinical genetic testing: insights and challenges in rare disease diagnosticsKim Soo Yeon대한소아신장학회 · Childhood Kidney Diseases2024 · 제28권 제1호Principles of Genetic Counseling in the Era of Next- Generation Sequencing김종원, 양미나대한진단검사의학회 · Annals of Laboratory Medicine2018 · 제38권 제4호Detection of Mosaic Sequence Variants Associated with Human Genetic Diseases김만진, 성문우, 이지수대한진단검사의학회 · Laboratory Medicine Online2023 · 제13권 제4호Applying Functional Assay Evidence to Interpret Sequence Variants Identified in Hereditary Cancer Genes김보연, 김윤정, 신새암, 이경아, 최유정대한진단검사의학회 · Laboratory Medicine Online2022 · 제12권 제3호A Case of Next-generation Sequencing Gene Testing: Points to be Considered in Testing and Reporting김종원, Kim Na-Kyoung대한진단검사의학회 · Annals of Laboratory Medicine2022 · 제42권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (14건)

Flow Cytometric Analysis of T Cells in Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis김선희, 조덕, 유인영, 김석진, 김희진, 박민승pp. 430-437Clonal Cell Proliferation in Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria: Evaluation of PIGA Mutations and T-cell Receptor Clonality박준홍, 조빈, 정낙균, 김명신, 김용구, 한경자, 이성은, 이종욱pp. 438-446Use of Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry for Clinical Testing in Korean Laboratories: a Questionnaire Survey채효진, 이용화, 이수연, 송상훈, 이경훈, 이상국, 조성은, 윤여민, 송정한, 박형두, 전사일pp. 447-453Circulating Biologically Active Adrenomedullin Predicts Organ Failure and Mortality in Sepsis김한아, 허미나, Salvatore Di Somma, Andreas Bergmann, Joachim Struckpp. 454-463Performance of the cobas u 701 Analyzer in Urinary Tract Infection ScreeningCoral Martin, Ana Infante, Gregoria Gázquez, Victoria Ortiz de la Tabla,, Félix Gutiérrez, Fernando Buñuelpp. 464-469
원문 보기