Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework

Background The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria (PS3/BS3) for functional assays that specified a “strong” level of evidence. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes is a contributor to variant interpretation discordance between laboratories. This recommendation seeks to provide a more structured approach to the assessment of functional assays for variant interpretation and guidance on the use of various levels of strength based on assay validation. Methods The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group used curated functional evidence from ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel-developed rule specifications and expert opinions to refine the PS3/BS3 criteria over multiple in-person and virtual meetings. We estimated odds of pathogenicity for assays using various numbers of variant controls to determine the minimum controls required to reach moderate level evidence. Feedback from the ClinGen Steering Committee and outside experts were incorporated into the recommendations at multiple stages of development. Results The SVI Working Group developed recommendations for evaluators regarding the assessment of the clinical validity of functional data and a four-step provisional framework to determine the appropriate strength of evidence that can be applied in clinical variant interpretation. These steps are: 1. Define the disease mechanism; 2. Evaluate applicability of general classes of assays used in the field; 3. Evaluate validity of specific instances of assays; 4. Apply evidence to individual variant interpretation. We found that a minimum of eleven total pathogenic and benign variant controls are required to reach moderate-level evidence in the absence of rigorous statistical analysis. Conclusions The recommendations and approach to functional evidence evaluation described here should help clarify the clinical variant interpretation process for functional assays. Further, we hope that these recommendations will help develop productive partnerships with basic scientists who have developed functional assays that are useful for interrogating the function of a variety of genes.

[1]  Olivier Lichtarge,et al.  Assessing the performance of in silico methods for predicting the pathogenicity of variants in the gene CHEK2, among Hispanic females with breast cancer , 2019, Human mutation.

[2]  Birgit Funke,et al.  ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel experiences and standardized processes for disease and gene‐level specification of the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variant interpretation , 2018, Human mutation.

[3]  Bruce D. Gelb,et al.  ClinGen’s RASopathy Expert Panel Consensus Methods for Variant Interpretation , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[4]  G. Cutting,et al.  Annotating DNA variants is the next major goal for human genetics. , 2014, American journal of human genetics.

[5]  Alex Chapin,et al.  Expert Specification of the ACMG/AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines for Genetic Hearing Loss , 2018, bioRxiv.

[6]  Marina T. DiStefano,et al.  Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion , 2018, Human mutation.

[7]  M. Ashburner,et al.  Gene Ontology: tool for the unification of biology , 2000, Nature Genetics.

[8]  S. Brenner,et al.  Evidence for the widespread coupling of alternative splicing and nonsense-mediated mRNA decay in humans , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Rolf H. Sijmons,et al.  A functional assay–based procedure to classify mismatch repair gene variants in Lynch syndrome , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[10]  R. Nussbaum,et al.  Modeling the ACMG/AMP Variant Classification Guidelines as a Bayesian Classification Framework , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.

[11]  Paul Denny,et al.  Genenames.org: the HGNC and VGNC resources in 2019 , 2018, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  Robert Huether,et al.  Gene‐specific criteria for PTEN variant curation: Recommendations from the ClinGen PTEN Expert Panel , 2018, Human mutation.

[13]  Briana Vecchio-Pagan,et al.  Systematic Computational Identification of Variants That Activate Exonic and Intronic Cryptic Splice Sites. , 2017, American journal of human genetics.

[14]  D. Cane,et al.  The nonsense-mediated decay RNA surveillance pathway. , 2007, Annual review of biochemistry.

[15]  Jonathan S Berg,et al.  Quantifying the potential of functional evidence to reclassify variants of uncertain significance in the categorical and Bayesian interpretation frameworks , 2018, Human mutation.

[16]  Carla Oliveira,et al.  Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant curation guidelines for the analysis of germline CDH1 sequence variants , 2018, Human mutation.

[17]  Leslie Burke,et al.  Towards controlled terminology for reporting germline cancer susceptibility variants: an ENIGMA report , 2019, Journal of Medical Genetics.

[18]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium. , 2016, American journal of human genetics.

[19]  James C. Hu,et al.  The Gene Ontology Resource: 20 years and still GOing strong , 2019 .

[20]  Karen Eilbeck,et al.  Unique aspects of sequence variant interpretation for inborn errors of metabolism (IEM): The ClinGen IEM Working Group and the Phenylalanine Hydroxylase Gene , 2018, Human mutation.

[21]  Vanessa E. Gray,et al.  Multiplex Assessment of Protein Variant Abundance by Massively Parallel Sequencing , 2018, Nature Genetics.

[22]  Martin Krzywinski,et al.  Points of Significance: Replication , 2014, Nature Methods.

[23]  Ryan L. Collins,et al.  Variation across 141,456 human exomes and genomes reveals the spectrum of loss-of-function intolerance across human protein-coding genes , 2019, bioRxiv.

[24]  Joseph D. Janizek,et al.  Accurate classification of BRCA1 variants with saturation genome editing , 2018, Nature.

[25]  Bale,et al.  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 , 2015, Genetics in Medicine.

[26]  Soma Das,et al.  Clinical Laboratories Collaborate to Resolve Differences in Variant Interpretations Submitted to ClinVar , 2017, Genetics in Medicine.

[27]  Sekhar Duraisamy,et al.  Classifying variants of CDKN2A using computational and laboratory studies , 2011, Human mutation.

[28]  Inês Barroso,et al.  Prospective functional classification of all possible missense variants in PPARG , 2016, Nature Genetics.

[29]  Birgit Funke,et al.  Adaptation and validation of the ACMG/AMP variant classification framework for MYH7-associated inherited cardiomyopathies: recommendations by ClinGen’s Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel , 2018, Genetics in Medicine.