4.5 Article

Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion

Journal

HUMAN MUTATION
Volume 39, Issue 11, Pages 1517-1524

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.23626

Keywords

ACMG/AMP; ClinGen; loss of function; PVS1; variant interpretation

Funding

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650, U01HG007436, U01HG007437, HHSN261200800001E]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2015 ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation guideline provided a framework for classifying variants based on several benign and pathogenic evidence criteria, including a pathogenic criterion (PVS1) for predicted loss of function variants. However, the guideline did not elaborate on specific considerations for the different types of loss of function variants, nor did it provide decision-making pathways assimilating information about variant type, its location, or any additional evidence for the likelihood of a true null effect. Furthermore, this guideline did not take into account the relative strengths for each evidence type and the final outcome of their combinations with respect to PVS1 strength. Finally, criteria specifying the genes for which PVS1 can be applied are still missing. Here, as part of the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Workgroup's goal of refining ACMG/AMP criteria, we provide recommendations for applying the PVS1 criterion using detailed guidance addressing the above-mentioned gaps. Evaluation of the refined criterion by seven disease-specific groups using heterogeneous types of loss of function variants (n = 56) showed 89% agreement with the new recommendation, while discrepancies in six variants (11%) were appropriately due to disease-specific refinements. Our recommendations will facilitate consistent and accurate interpretation of predicted loss of function variants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available