↓ Skip to main content

Multifactorial Likelihood Assessment of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Missense Variants Confirms That BRCA1:c.122A>G(p.His41Arg) Is a Pathogenic Mutation

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Multifactorial Likelihood Assessment of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Missense Variants Confirms That BRCA1:c.122A>G(p.His41Arg) Is a Pathogenic Mutation
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0086836
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip J. Whiley, Michael T. Parsons, Jennifer Leary, Kathy Tucker, Linda Warwick, Belinda Dopita, Heather Thorne, Sunil R. Lakhani, David E. Goldgar, Melissa A. Brown, Amanda B. Spurdle

Abstract

Rare exonic, non-truncating variants in known cancer susceptibility genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 are problematic for genetic counseling and clinical management of relevant families. This study used multifactorial likelihood analysis and/or bioinformatically-directed mRNA assays to assess pathogenicity of 19 BRCA1 or BRCA2 variants identified following patient referral to clinical genetic services. Two variants were considered to be pathogenic (Class 5). BRCA1:c.4484G> C(p.Arg1495Thr) was shown to result in aberrant mRNA transcripts predicted to encode truncated proteins. The BRCA1:c.122A>G(p.His41Arg) RING-domain variant was found from multifactorial likelihood analysis to have a posterior probability of pathogenicity of 0.995, a result consistent with existing protein functional assay data indicating lost BARD1 binding and ubiquitin ligase activity. Of the remaining variants, seven were determined to be not clinically significant (Class 1), nine were likely not pathogenic (Class 2), and one was uncertain (Class 3).These results have implications for genetic counseling and medical management of families carrying these specific variants. They also provide additional multifactorial likelihood variant classifications as reference to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of bioinformatic prediction tools and/or functional assay data in future studies.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 32%
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 21%
Computer Science 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 6 16%
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 23 December 2014.
All research outputs
#15,298,293
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#130,425
of 194,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,900
of 307,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,572
of 5,623 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 307,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,623 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.