ArticleHuman genetics2024
Scalable approaches for generating, validating and incorporating data from high-throughput functional assays to improve clinical variant classification.
Article in Human genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Forensic Perspective of Unintentional Doping, Cardiovascular Health, and the Role of Nutrition in Competitive Sports.Nutrients · 2026Pooled it
- Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases: Variant Classification, Functional Assays, and Emerging Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2026Review
- High-throughput screens identify genotype-specific therapeutics for channelopathies.JCI insight · 2025Article
- Consultation informs strategies for improving the use of functional evidence in variant classification.American journal of human genetics · 2025Article
- Harnessing genotype and phenotype data for population-scale variant classification using large language models and bayesian inference.Human genetics · 2025Article
- Clinical Variant Reclassification in Hereditary Disease Genetic Testing.JAMA network open · 2024Article
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
As the adoption and scope of genetic testing continue to expand, interpreting the clinical significance of DNA sequence variants at scale remains a formidable challenge, with a high proportion classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Genetic testing laboratories have historically relied, in part, on functional data from academic literature to support variant classification. High-throughput functional assays or multiplex assays of variant effect (MAVEs), designed to assess the effects of DNA variants on protein stability and function, represent an important and increasingly available source of evidence for variant classification, but their potential is just beginning to be realized in clinical lab settings. Here, we describe a framework for generating, validating and incorporating data from MAVEs into a semi-quantitative variant classification method applied to clinical genetic testing. Using single-cell gene expression measurements, cellular evidence models were built to assess the effects of DNA variation in 44 genes of clinical interest. This framework was also applied to models for an additional 22 genes with previously published MAVE datasets. In total, modeling data was incorporated from 24 genes into our variant classification method. These data contributed evidence for classifying 4043 observed variants in over 57,000 individuals. Genetic testing laboratories are uniquely positioned to generate, analyze, validate, and incorporate evidence from high-throughput functional data and ultimately enable the use of these data to provide definitive clinical variant classifications for more patients.
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.