Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35869530›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2022

Assessing the clinical utility of protein structural analysis in genomic variant classification: experiences from a diagnostic laboratory.

Richard C Caswell, Adam C Gunning, Martina M Owens, Sian Ellard, Caroline F Wright

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Candidate Genes for Non-Syndromic Pediatric Cataracts.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Orthogonal analysis of variants in APOE gene usingFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2023
    Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard C CaswellExeter Genomics Laboratory, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. richard.caswell@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0003-0713-4602
Adam C GunningExeter Genomics Laboratory, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Martina M OwensExeter Genomics Laboratory, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Sian EllardExeter Genomics Laboratory, Royal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK.
Caroline F WrightInstitute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, University of Exeter School of Medicine, Exeter, EX2 5DW, UK. caroline.wright@exeter.ac.uk.
University of Exeter · GBRoyal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust WT200990/A/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe widespread clinical application of genome-wide sequencing has resulted in many new diagnoses for rare genetic conditions, but testing regularly identifies variants of uncertain significance (VUS). The remarkable rise in the amount of genomic data has been paralleled by a rise in the number of protein structures that are now publicly available, which may have clinical utility for the interpretation of missense and in-frame insertions or deletions.

methodsWithin a UK National Health Service genomic medicine diagnostic laboratory, we investigated the number of VUS over a 5-year period that were evaluated using protein structural analysis and how often this analysis aided variant classification.

resultsWe found 99 novel missense and in-frame variants across 67 genes that were initially classified as VUS by our diagnostic laboratory using standard variant classification guidelines and for which further analysis of protein structure was requested. Evidence from protein structural analysis was used in the re-assessment of 64 variants, of which 47 were subsequently reclassified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic and 17 remained as VUS. We identified several case studies where protein structural analysis aided variant interpretation by predicting disease mechanisms that were consistent with the observed phenotypes, including loss-of-function through thermodynamic destabilisation or disruption of ligand binding, and gain-of-function through de-repression or escape from proteasomal degradation.

conclusionsWe have shown that using in silico protein structural analysis can aid classification of VUS and give insights into the mechanisms of pathogenicity. Based on our experience, we propose a generic evidence-based workflow for incorporating protein structural information into diagnostic practice to facilitate variant classification.

Indexed as

GenomicsState MedicineGenetic TestingPhenotypeGenomic medicineMissense variantModellingPathogenicityPredictionProtein structureVariant classificationVariant interpretation

Identifiers

PMID35869530
PMCPMC9308257
OpenAlexW4286560036

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.