ArticleJournal of community genetics2017
Assessment of in silico protein sequence analysis in the clinical classification of variants in cancer risk genes.
Article in Journal of community genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Performance ofCombinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2025Article
- Basket Trials: Past, Present, and Future.Annual review of cancer biology · 2024Article
- Malignant melanoma in a 12-year-old boy 17 months after completing hepatoblastoma treatment.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- A review of genetic variant databases and machine learning tools for predicting the pathogenicity of breast cancer.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Review
- In Silico-Based Structural Evaluation to Categorize the Pathogenicity of Mutations Identified in the RAD Class of Proteins.ACS omega · 2023Article
- A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Performance of Prediction Algorithms on Clinically Relevant Missense Variants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Pathogenic nsSNPs that increase the risks of cancers among the Orang Asli and Malays.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Internal Standardization of the Interpretation and Reporting of Sequence Variants in Hematologic Neoplasms.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2021Article
- In silico analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 missense variants and the relevance in molecular genetic testing.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Comparison of PredictiveTheScientificWorldJournal · 2019Article
- Making the right calls in precision oncology.Nature biotechnology · 2018Article
- Performance of in silico prediction tools for the classification of rare BRCA1/2 missense variants in clinical diagnostics.BMC medical genomics · 2018Article
- Zebrafish models of orofacial clefts.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Missense variants represent a significant proportion of variants identified in clinical genetic testing. In the absence of strong clinical or functional evidence, the American College of Medical Genetics recommends that these findings be classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). VUSs may be reclassified to better inform patient care when new evidence is available. It is critical that the methods used for reclassification are robust in order to prevent inappropriate medical management strategies and unnecessary, life-altering surgeries. In an effort to provide evidence for classification, several in silico algorithms have been developed that attempt to predict the functional impact of missense variants through amino acid sequence conservation analysis. We report an analysis comparing internally derived, evidence-based classifications with the results obtained from six commonly used algorithms. We compiled a dataset of 1118 variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, and MSH2 previously classified by our laboratory's evidence-based variant classification program. We compared internally derived classifications with those obtained from the following in silico tools: Align-GVGD, CONDEL, Grantham Analysis, MAPP-MMR, PolyPhen-2, and SIFT. Despite being based on similar underlying principles, all algorithms displayed marked divergence in accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity. Overall, accuracy ranged from 58.7 to 90.8% while the Matthews Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.26-0.65. CONDEL, a weighted average of multiple algorithms, did not perform significantly better than its individual components evaluated here. These results suggest that the in silico algorithms evaluated here do not provide reliable evidence regarding the clinical significance of missense variants in genes associated with hereditary cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.