Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels

View ORCID ProfileDona M. Kanavy, View ORCID ProfileShannon M. McNulty, View ORCID ProfileMeera K. Jairath, View ORCID ProfileSarah E. Brnich, Chris Bizon, View ORCID ProfileBradford C. Powell, View ORCID ProfileJonathan S. Berg
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19000661
Dona M. Kanavy
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dona M. Kanavy
  • For correspondence: dona_kanavy@med.unc.edu
Shannon M. McNulty
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Shannon M. McNulty
  • For correspondence: shannon_mcnulty@med.unc.edu
Meera K. Jairath
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Meera K. Jairath
  • For correspondence: meera_jairath@med.unc.edu
Sarah E. Brnich
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sarah E. Brnich
  • For correspondence: sarah_brnich@med.unc.edu
Chris Bizon
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: bizon@renci.org
Bradford C. Powell
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Bradford C. Powell
  • For correspondence: bcpowell@email.unc.edu
Jonathan S. Berg
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan S. Berg
  • For correspondence: jonathan_berg@med.unc.edu
  • Abstract
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines for clinical sequence variant interpretation state that well-established functional studies can be used as evidence in variant classification. These guidelines articulated key attributes of functional data, including that assays should reflect the biological environment and be analytically sound; however, details of how to evaluate these attributes were left to expert judgment. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) designates Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) in specific disease areas to make gene-centric specifications to the ACMG/AMP guidelines, including more specific definitions of appropriate functional assays. We set out to evaluate the existing VCEP guidelines for functional assays. Methods We evaluated the functional criteria (PS3/BS3) of six VCEPs (CDH1, Hearing Loss, Inherited Cardiomyopathy-MYH7, PAH, PTEN, RASopathy). We then established criteria for evaluating functional studies based on disease mechanism, general class of assay, and the characteristics of specific assay instances described in primary literature. Using these criteria, we extensively curated assay instances cited by each VCEP in their pilot variant classification to analyze VCEP recommendations and their use in the interpretation of functional studies. Results Unsurprisingly, our analysis highlighted the breadth of VCEP-approved assays, reflecting the diversity of disease mechanisms among VCEPs. We also noted substantial variability between VCEPs in the method used to select these assays and in the approach used to specify strength modifications, as well as differences in suggested validation parameters. Importantly, we observed discrepancies between the parameters VCEPs specified as required for approved assay instances and the fulfillment of these requirements in the individual assays cited in pilot variant interpretation. Conclusions Interpretation of the intricacies of functional assays often requires expert-level knowledge of the gene and disease and current VCEP recommendations for functional assay evidence are a useful tool to improve the accessibility of functional data. However, our analysis suggests that further guidance is needed to standardize this process and ensure consistency in the application of functional evidence.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the following grants: UNC/ACMG/Geisinger/Kaiser under the award number U41HG009650 and 3U41HG009650-02S1. ClinGen is primarily funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), through the following three grants: U41HG006834, U41HG009649, U41HG009650. ClinGen also receives support for content curation from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), through the following three grants: U24HD093483, U24HD093486, U24HD093487. SEB is supported in part by National Institute of General Medical Sciences grants 5T32 GM007092 and 5T32 GM008719-6. SEB is also a recipient of support from the University Cancer Research Fund as an MD/PhD scholar. JSB is a recipient of the Yang Family Biomedical Scholars Award. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

NA

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

NA

Any clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.

NA

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.

NA

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study supporting the conclusions of the article are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 28, 2019.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
Share
Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels
Dona M. Kanavy, Shannon M. McNulty, Meera K. Jairath, Sarah E. Brnich, Chris Bizon, Bradford C. Powell, Jonathan S. Berg
medRxiv 19000661; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19000661
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels
Dona M. Kanavy, Shannon M. McNulty, Meera K. Jairath, Sarah E. Brnich, Chris Bizon, Bradford C. Powell, Jonathan S. Berg
medRxiv 19000661; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/19000661

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (5)
  • Allergy and Immunology (5)
  • Anesthesia (5)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (36)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (1)
  • Dermatology (8)
  • Emergency Medicine (3)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (18)
  • Epidemiology (143)
  • Forensic Medicine
  • Gastroenterology (14)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (58)
  • Geriatric Medicine (8)
  • Health Economics (5)
  • Health Informatics (41)
  • Health Policy (13)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (9)
  • Hematology (3)
  • HIV/AIDS (27)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (53)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (5)
  • Medical Education (18)
  • Medical Ethics (3)
  • Nephrology (5)
  • Neurology (60)
  • Nursing (4)
  • Nutrition (12)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (6)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (11)
  • Oncology (35)
  • Ophthalmology (16)
  • Orthopedics (2)
  • Otolaryngology (6)
  • Pain Medicine (6)
  • Palliative Medicine (1)
  • Pathology (8)
  • Pediatrics (16)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (6)
  • Primary Care Research (7)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (71)
  • Public and Global Health (59)
  • Radiology and Imaging (22)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (19)
  • Respiratory Medicine (10)
  • Rheumatology (8)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (5)
  • Sports Medicine (7)
  • Surgery (7)
  • Toxicology
  • Transplantation (5)
  • Urology (1)