PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Dona M. Kanavy AU - Shannon M. McNulty AU - Meera K. Jairath AU - Sarah E. Brnich AU - Chris Bizon AU - Bradford C. Powell AU - Jonathan S. Berg TI - Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels AID - 10.1101/19000661 DP - 2019 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 19000661 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/06/28/19000661.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/06/28/19000661.full AB - 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis 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 DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.NAAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.NAAny clinical trials involved have been registered with an ICMJE-approved registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial ID is included in the manuscript.NAI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant Equator, ICMJE or other checklist(s) as supplementary files, if applicable.NAAll data generated or analyzed during this study supporting the conclusions of the article are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.ACMGAmerican College of Medical Genetics and GenomicsAMPAssociation for Molecular PathologyATPAdenosine TriphosphateBH4TetrahydrobiopterinDFNA9autosomal dominant nonsyndromic deafness 9DFNB1autosomal recessive nonsyndromic deafness 1DFNB3autosomal dominant nonsyndromic deafnessDFNB4autosomal recessive nonsyndromic deafness 4BAOBioassay OntologyBbenignClinGenClinical Genome ResourceECOEvidence and Conclusion OntologyEGFEpidermal Fibroblast GrowthFGFFibroblast Growth FactorGOGene OntologyHLHearing LossHPLChigh-performance liquid chromatographyLBlikely benignLPlikely pathogenicMONDOMonarch Disease Ontology identifierPpathogenicpAKTphosphorylated AKTPKUPhenylketonuriaPMIDPubMed identifierTLCthin-layer chromatographyVCEPVariant Curation Expert PanelVUSvariant of uncertain significance