Abstract:Background The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines articulates that the effects of certain types of variants on gene function can often be seen as a complete absence of the gene product by leading to a lack of transcription or nonsense-mediated decay(NMD). However, detailed information considering different types of loss of function(LOF) variants, refined steps assimilating details concerning location of variant, changes in strength levels, NMD boundary, or any additional information pointing to a true null effect, were all left to expert judgement. As part of its Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) initiative, Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) are designated to make gene/disease-centric specifications in accordance with the ACMG/AMP guidelines, including a more detailed definition of what constitutes an appropriate LOF evidence. Our goal was to evaluate the current LOF guidelines developed by the VCEPs and analyse the prior curated variants concerning the PVS1 criteria, bringing people occupied in genetic data analysis a comprehensive understanding of this code. Methods Our study evaluated 7 VCEPs for their LOF criteria (PVS1). Subsequently, we assessed the predictive criteria by considering the underlying disease mechanism, protein transcript, and variant types delineated. Then, we meticulously curated the LOF evidence referenced by each VCEP in their preliminary variant classification, thereby scrutinizing the recommendations put forth by VCEPs and their application in the interpretation of the aforementioned predictive criteria. Based on these, an extensive curation of evidence summary considering PVS1 applied by VCEPs according to their classification of pilot variants for the purpose of analyzing VCEP criteria specifications and their use in the understanding of LOF was conducted. Results We observed in this article that the VCEPs discussed followed the majority of Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) recommendations concerning the application of this LOF criteria, except for some disease/gene specific considerations. We highlighted the wide range of PVS1 strength levels approved by VCEP, reflecting the diversity of evidence for each variants type. In addition, we observed substantial differences in the approach used to determine relative strengths for different types of null variants and in the attitude towards these principles concerning variant location, NMD and influence to protein function between VCEPs. Conclusions It is difficult to understand the intricacies of the predictive data(PVS1), which often requires expert-level knowledge of disease/gene. The VCEP criteria specifications for the predictive evidence play an important role in making it more accessible for the curators to apply the predictive data by providing details concerning this complex criteria. Despite this, we believe there is a need for more guidance on standardizing this process and ensuring consistency in the application of this predictive evidence.

Assessment of the evidence yield for the calibrated PP3/BP4 computational recommendations

ClinGen guidance for use of the PP1/BS4 co-segregation and PP4 phenotype specificity criteria for sequence variant pathogenicity classification

Comprehensive evaluation of AlphaMissense predictions by evidence quantification for variants of uncertain significance

Mismatch repair gene specifications to the ACMG/AMP classification criteria: Consensus recommendations from the InSiGHT ClinGen Hereditary Colorectal Cancer / Polyposis Variant Curation Expert Panel

Modeling the ACMG/AMP variant classification guidelines as a Bayesian classification framework

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

Challenges and approaches to calibrating patient phenotype as evidence for cancer gene variant classification under ACMG/AMP guidelines

Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel

When Two plus Four Does Not Equal Six: Combining Computational and Functional Evidence Towards Classification of BRCA1 Key Domain Missense Substitutions.

Extracting and calibrating population evidence of variant pathogenicity using biobank data

The PS4-likelihood ratio calculator: flexible allocation of evidence weighting for case-control data in variant classification

The performance of AlphaMissense to identify genes influencing disease

The performance of AlphaMissense to identify genes causing disease

The landscape of regional missense mutational intolerance quantified from 125,748 exomes

Correspondence on ACMG STATEMENT: ACMG SF v3.0 list for reporting of secondary findings in clinical exome and genome sequencing: a policy statement of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) by Miller et al

A New Era in Missense Variant Analysis: Statistical Insights and the Introduction of VAMPP-Score for Pathogenicity Assessment

REVEL: an Ensemble Method for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Rare Missense Variants

Critical assessment of missense variant effect predictors on disease-relevant variant data

Abstract 7325: Integration of functional data to classify BRCA1/2 missense variants: An ENIGMA project

Evaluating ClinGen variant curation expert panels' application of PVS1 code

The Impact of Clinical and Molecular Variant Properties on Calibration and Performance of Variant Effect Prediction Tools