ArticleCancer genetics2025
Evaluating the consistency of SMARCB1 variant classification and assertions of genotype-phenotype relationships in ClinVar.
Article in Cancer genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- SMARCB1 missense mutants disrupt SWI/SNF complex stability and remodeling activity.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pathogenic SMARCB1 variants are associated with multiple Mendelian syndromes: Schwannomatosis (SM), Rhabdoid Tumour Predisposition Syndrome (RTPS1), and/or Coffin-Siris Syndrome (CSS). Although some data suggests genotype/phenotype relationships based on mutation type and location, this is not used consistently potentially due to inconsistent or absent phenotypic data. We used ClinVar, the largest public platform of variant classifications, to evaluate variant-specific data from clinical laboratories and cited publications to assess reporting consistency and genotype-phenotype relationships. When available, we extracted the mutation type, HGVS nomenclature, submitters, publications, and disease conditions. We compared the disease assertions made by laboratory submissions with those made in cited publications. Across 59 SMARCB1 pathogenic variants, we identified 91 laboratory submissions (38 single and 20 multiple laboratories) and 40 cited articles. Of 91 submissions, 40 did not provide any disease assertion. Nonsense RTPS1 variants (n = 23) were mostly located in exon 2, with some in exons 1, 4 and 5, and other variant types were limited to frameshifts and large deletions/duplications. SM variants (n = 10) were found throughout SMARCB1 with diverse variant types. CSS variants (n = 6) were single amino-acid deletions, missense and frameshift variants limited to exons 8 and 9. Although ClinVar is a rich source of variant data and extensively used during variant classification, the frequent absence of disease assertions and inconsistent reporting impedes implementation of clear genotype-phenotype relationships for SMARCB1. Given the significant clinical impact of these diagnoses a more standardized way of reporting pathogenic variants for diseases associated with multiple Mendelian disorders is needed.
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.