咨询告知改进变体分类中功能证据使用的策略。

IF 8.1 1区 生物学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Rehan M Villani, Bronwyn Terrill, Emma Tudini, Maddison E McKenzie, Corrina C Cliffe, Christopher N Hahn, Ben Lundie, Tessa Mattiske, Ebony Matotek, Abbye E McEwen, Sarah L Nickerson, James Breen, Douglas M Fowler, John Christodoulou, Lea Starita, Alan F Rubin, Amanda B Spurdle
{"title":"咨询告知改进变体分类中功能证据使用的策略。","authors":"Rehan M Villani, Bronwyn Terrill, Emma Tudini, Maddison E McKenzie, Corrina C Cliffe, Christopher N Hahn, Ben Lundie, Tessa Mattiske, Ebony Matotek, Abbye E McEwen, Sarah L Nickerson, James Breen, Douglas M Fowler, John Christodoulou, Lea Starita, Alan F Rubin, Amanda B Spurdle","doi":"10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.05.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When investigating whether a variant identified by diagnostic genetic testing is causal for disease, applied genetics professionals evaluate all available evidence to assign a clinical classification. Functional assays of higher and higher throughput are increasingly being generated and, when appropriate, can provide strong functional evidence for or against pathogenicity in variant classification. Despite functional assay data representing unprecedented value for genomic diagnostics, challenges remain around the application of functional evidence in variant curation. To investigate a growing gap articulated in recent international studies, we surveyed genetic diagnostic professionals in Australasia to assess their application of functional evidence in clinical practice. The survey results echo the universal difficulty in evaluating functional evidence but expand on this by indicating that even self-proclaimed expert respondents are not confident to apply functional evidence, mainly due to uncertainty around practice recommendations. Respondents also identified the need for support resources and educational opportunities, and in particular requested expert recommendations and updated practice guidelines to improve translation of experimental data to curation evidence. We then collated a list of 226 functional assays and the evidence strength recommended by 19 ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels. Specific assays for more than 45,000 variants were evaluated, but evidence recommendations were generally limited to lower throughput and strength. As an initial step, we provide our collated list of assay evidence as a source of international expert opinion on the evaluation of functional- evidence and conclude that these results highlight an opportunity to develop additional support resources to fully utilize functional evidence in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":7659,"journal":{"name":"American journal of human genetics","volume":"112 6","pages":"1489-1495"},"PeriodicalIF":8.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consultation informs strategies for improving the use of functional evidence in variant classification.\",\"authors\":\"Rehan M Villani, Bronwyn Terrill, Emma Tudini, Maddison E McKenzie, Corrina C Cliffe, Christopher N Hahn, Ben Lundie, Tessa Mattiske, Ebony Matotek, Abbye E McEwen, Sarah L Nickerson, James Breen, Douglas M Fowler, John Christodoulou, Lea Starita, Alan F Rubin, Amanda B Spurdle\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.05.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When investigating whether a variant identified by diagnostic genetic testing is causal for disease, applied genetics professionals evaluate all available evidence to assign a clinical classification. Functional assays of higher and higher throughput are increasingly being generated and, when appropriate, can provide strong functional evidence for or against pathogenicity in variant classification. Despite functional assay data representing unprecedented value for genomic diagnostics, challenges remain around the application of functional evidence in variant curation. To investigate a growing gap articulated in recent international studies, we surveyed genetic diagnostic professionals in Australasia to assess their application of functional evidence in clinical practice. The survey results echo the universal difficulty in evaluating functional evidence but expand on this by indicating that even self-proclaimed expert respondents are not confident to apply functional evidence, mainly due to uncertainty around practice recommendations. Respondents also identified the need for support resources and educational opportunities, and in particular requested expert recommendations and updated practice guidelines to improve translation of experimental data to curation evidence. We then collated a list of 226 functional assays and the evidence strength recommended by 19 ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels. Specific assays for more than 45,000 variants were evaluated, but evidence recommendations were generally limited to lower throughput and strength. As an initial step, we provide our collated list of assay evidence as a source of international expert opinion on the evaluation of functional- evidence and conclude that these results highlight an opportunity to develop additional support resources to fully utilize functional evidence in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of human genetics\",\"volume\":\"112 6\",\"pages\":\"1489-1495\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of human genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.05.003\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of human genetics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2025.05.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当调查通过诊断性基因检测确定的变异是否导致疾病时,应用遗传学专业人员评估所有可用的证据来分配临床分类。越来越多通量越来越高的功能分析正在产生,并且在适当的情况下,可以为变异分类中的致病性提供强有力的功能证据。尽管功能分析数据对基因组诊断具有前所未有的价值,但在变异管理中应用功能证据仍然存在挑战。为了调查最近国际研究中日益增长的差距,我们调查了澳大拉西亚的遗传诊断专业人员,以评估他们在临床实践中功能证据的应用。调查结果反映了评估功能性证据的普遍困难,但在此基础上进行了扩展,表明即使自称为专家的受访者也对应用功能性证据没有信心,这主要是由于实践建议的不确定性。受访者还确定需要支持资源和教育机会,并特别要求专家建议和更新实践指南,以改进将实验数据转化为策展证据的工作。然后,我们整理了226项功能分析和19个ClinGen变异管理专家小组推荐的证据强度。对超过45,000个变异的特定分析进行了评估,但证据建议通常限于较低的通量和强度。作为第一步,我们提供了我们整理的检测证据清单,作为评估功能证据的国际专家意见的来源,并得出结论,这些结果突出了开发额外支持资源以在临床实践中充分利用功能证据的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consultation informs strategies for improving the use of functional evidence in variant classification.

When investigating whether a variant identified by diagnostic genetic testing is causal for disease, applied genetics professionals evaluate all available evidence to assign a clinical classification. Functional assays of higher and higher throughput are increasingly being generated and, when appropriate, can provide strong functional evidence for or against pathogenicity in variant classification. Despite functional assay data representing unprecedented value for genomic diagnostics, challenges remain around the application of functional evidence in variant curation. To investigate a growing gap articulated in recent international studies, we surveyed genetic diagnostic professionals in Australasia to assess their application of functional evidence in clinical practice. The survey results echo the universal difficulty in evaluating functional evidence but expand on this by indicating that even self-proclaimed expert respondents are not confident to apply functional evidence, mainly due to uncertainty around practice recommendations. Respondents also identified the need for support resources and educational opportunities, and in particular requested expert recommendations and updated practice guidelines to improve translation of experimental data to curation evidence. We then collated a list of 226 functional assays and the evidence strength recommended by 19 ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels. Specific assays for more than 45,000 variants were evaluated, but evidence recommendations were generally limited to lower throughput and strength. As an initial step, we provide our collated list of assay evidence as a source of international expert opinion on the evaluation of functional- evidence and conclude that these results highlight an opportunity to develop additional support resources to fully utilize functional evidence in clinical practice.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.70
自引率
4.10%
发文量
185
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Human Genetics (AJHG) is a monthly journal published by Cell Press, chosen by The American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) as its premier publication starting from January 2008. AJHG represents Cell Press's first society-owned journal, and both ASHG and Cell Press anticipate significant synergies between AJHG content and that of other Cell Press titles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信