ArticleSultan Qaboos University medical journal2015
Predicting the Pathogenic Potential of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene Variants Identified in Clinical Genetic Testing.
Article in Sultan Qaboos University medical journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMissense variants are very commonly detected when screening for mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Pathogenic mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes lead to an increased risk of developing breast, ovarian, prostate and/or pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to assess the predictive capability of in silico programmes and mutation databases in assisting diagnostic laboratories to determine the pathogenicity of sequence-detectable mutations.
methodsBetween July 2011 and April 2013, an analysis was undertaken of 13 missense BRCA gene variants that had been detected in patients referred to the Genetic Health Services New Zealand (Northern Hub) for BRCA gene analysis. The analysis involved the use of 13 in silico protein prediction programmes, two in silico transcript analysis programmes and the examination of three BRCA gene databases.
resultsIn most of the variants, the analysis showed different in silico interpretations. This illustrates the interpretation challenges faced by diagnostic laboratories.
conclusionUnfortunately, when using online mutation databases and carrying out in silico analyses, there is significant discordance in the classification of some missense variants in the BRCA genes. This discordance leads to complexities in interpreting and reporting these variants in a clinical context. The authors have developed a simple procedure for analysing variants; however, those of unknown significance largely remain unknown. As a consequence, the clinical value of some reports may be negligible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26052455PMC4450785W1591454212What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.