↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of in silico protein sequence analysis in the clinical classification of variants in cancer risk genes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Community Genetics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of in silico protein sequence analysis in the clinical classification of variants in cancer risk genes
Published in
Journal of Community Genetics, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12687-016-0289-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iain D. Kerr, Hannah C. Cox, Kelsey Moyes, Brent Evans, Brianna C. Burdett, Aric van Kan, Heather McElroy, Paris J. Vail, Krystal L. Brown, Dechie B. Sumampong, Nicholas J. Monteferrante, Kennedy L. Hardman, Aaron Theisen, Erin Mundt, Richard J. Wenstrup, Julie M. Eggington

Abstract

Missense variants represent a significant proportion of variants identified in clinical genetic testing. In the absence of strong clinical or functional evidence, the American College of Medical Genetics recommends that these findings be classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). VUSs may be reclassified to better inform patient care when new evidence is available. It is critical that the methods used for reclassification are robust in order to prevent inappropriate medical management strategies and unnecessary, life-altering surgeries. In an effort to provide evidence for classification, several in silico algorithms have been developed that attempt to predict the functional impact of missense variants through amino acid sequence conservation analysis. We report an analysis comparing internally derived, evidence-based classifications with the results obtained from six commonly used algorithms. We compiled a dataset of 1118 variants in BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, and MSH2 previously classified by our laboratory's evidence-based variant classification program. We compared internally derived classifications with those obtained from the following in silico tools: Align-GVGD, CONDEL, Grantham Analysis, MAPP-MMR, PolyPhen-2, and SIFT. Despite being based on similar underlying principles, all algorithms displayed marked divergence in accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity. Overall, accuracy ranged from 58.7 to 90.8% while the Matthews Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.26-0.65. CONDEL, a weighted average of multiple algorithms, did not perform significantly better than its individual components evaluated here. These results suggest that the in silico algorithms evaluated here do not provide reliable evidence regarding the clinical significance of missense variants in genes associated with hereditary cancer.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 17 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,810,002
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Genetics
#297
of 365 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,624
of 420,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Genetics
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 365 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.