Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31534211›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2020

Adapting ACMG/AMP sequence variant classification guidelines for single-gene copy number variants.

Tracy Brandt, Laura M Sack, Dolores Arjona, Duanjun Tan, Hui Mei, Hong Cui, Hua Gao, Lora J H Bean, Arunkanth Ankala, Daniela Del Gaudio and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Tracy BrandtGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. tbrandt@genedx.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-7594
Laura M SackGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1186-1335
Dolores ArjonaGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Duanjun TanGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5596-9896
Hui MeiGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Hong CuiGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9519-1860
Hua GaoGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Lora J H BeanDepartment of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Arunkanth AnkalaDepartment of Human Genetics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6373-9916
Daniela Del GaudioDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago Genetic Services Laboratory, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Amy Knight JohnsonDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago Genetic Services Laboratory, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9104-9170
Lisa M VincentGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1348-7738
Caitlin ReaveyGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Amy LaiGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Gabriele RichardGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Jeanne M MeckGeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1247-9875

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe ability of a single technology, next-generation sequencing, to provide both sequence and copy number variant (CNV) results has driven the merger of clinical cytogenetics and molecular genetics. Consequently, the distinction between the definition of a sequence variant and a CNV is blurry. As the 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) standards and guidelines for interpretation of sequence variants address CNV classification only sparingly, this study focused on adapting ACMG/AMP criteria for single-gene CNV interpretation.

methodsCNV-specific modifications of the 2015 ACMG/AMP criteria were developed and their utility was independently tested by three diagnostic laboratories. Each laboratory team interpreted the same 12 single-gene CNVs using three systems: (1) without ACMG/AMP guidance, (2) with ACMG/AMP criteria, and (3) with new modifications. A replication study of 12 different CNVs validated the modified criteria.

resultsThe adapted criteria system presented here showed improved concordance and usability for single-gene CNVs compared with using the ACMG/AMP interpretation guidelines focused on sequence variants.

conclusionThese single-gene CNV criteria modifications could be used as a supplement to the ACMG/AMP guidelines for sequence variants, allowing for a streamlined workflow and a step toward a uniform classification system for both sequence and copy number alterations.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDNA Copy Number VariationsGene DosageGenetic TestingGenetic VariationGenome, HumanGenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLaboratoriesMutationSequence Analysis, DNAACMG/AMP criteriacopy number variant (CNV)PVS1variant classification guidelinesvariant interpretation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.