Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39301547›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Prevalence of the cancer-associated germline variants in Russian adults and long-living individuals: using the ACMG recommendations and computational interpreters for pathogenicity assessment.

Mariia Gusakova, Irina Dzhumaniiazova, Elena Zelenova, Daria Kashtanova, Mikhail Ivanov, Aleksandra Mamchur, Antonina Rumyantseva, Mikhail Terekhov, Sergey Mitrofanov, Liliya Golubnikova and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

17 authors.

Mariia GusakovaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Irina DzhumaniiazovaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Elena ZelenovaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Daria KashtanovaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Mikhail IvanovThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Aleksandra MamchurThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Antonina RumyantsevaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Mikhail TerekhovThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Sergey MitrofanovThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Liliya GolubnikovaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Aleksandra AkinshinaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Konstantin GrammatikatiThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Irina KalashnikovaThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Vladimir YudinThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Valentin MakarovThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Anton KeskinovThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.
Sergey YudinThe Federal State Budgetary Institution "Centre for Strategic Planning and Management of Biomedical Health Risks" of the Federal Medical Biological Agency, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Population studies are essential for gathering critical disease prevalence data. Automated pathogenicity assessment tools enhance the capacity to interpret and annotate large amounts of genetic data. In this study, we assessed the prevalence of cancer-associated germline variants in Russia using a semiautomated variant interpretation algorithm. Methods: We examined 74,996 Russian adults (Group 1) and 2,872 long-living individuals aged ≥ 90 years (Group 2) for variants in 28 ACMG-recommended cancer-associated genes in three steps: InterVar annotation; ClinVar interpretation; and a manual review of the prioritized variants based on the available data. Using the data on the place of birth and the region of residence, we determined the geographical distribution of the detected variants and tracked the migration dynamics of their carriers. Results: We report 175 novel del-VUSs. We detected 232 pathogenic variants, 46 likely pathogenic variants, and 216 del-VUSs in Group 1 and 19 pathogenic variants, 2 likely pathogenic variants, and 16 del-VUSs in Group 2. For each detected variant, we provide a description of its functional significance and geographical distribution. Conclusion: The present study offers extensive genetic data on the Russian population, critical for future genetic research and improved primary cancer prevention and genetic screening strategies. The proposed hybrid assessment algorithm streamlines variant prioritization and pathogenicity assessment and offers a reliable and verifiable way of identifying variants of uncertain significance that need to be manually reviewed.

Indexed as

ACMGautomated variant annotationcancercancer geneticgermline variants

Identifiers

PMID39301547
PMCPMC11410565

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.