↓ Skip to main content

Tailoring the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequenced Variants in the FBN1 Gene for Marfan Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Tailoring the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequenced Variants in the FBN1 Gene for Marfan Syndrome
Published in
Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1161/circgen.117.002039
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Muiño-Mosquera, Felke Steijns, Tjorven Audenaert, Ilse Meerschaut, Anne De Paepe, Wouter Steyaert, Sofie Symoens, Paul Coucke, Bert Callewaert, Marjolijn Renard, Julie De Backer

Abstract

The introduction of next-generation sequencing techniques has substantially increased the identification of new genetic variants and hence the necessity of accurate variant interpretation. In 2015, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology proposed new variant interpretation guidelines. Gene-specific characteristics were, however, not considered, sometimes leading to inconsistent variant interpretation. To allow a more uniform interpretation of variants in the FBN1 (fibrillin-1) gene, causing Marfan syndrome, we tailored these guidelines to this gene and disease. We adapted 15 of the 28 general criteria and classified 713 FBN1 variants previously identified in our laboratory as causal mutation or variant of uncertain significance according to these adapted guidelines. We then compared the agreement between previous methods and the adapted American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology criteria. Agreement between the methods was 86.4% (K-alpha, 0.6). Application of the tailored guidelines resulted in an increased number of variants of uncertain significance (14.5% to 24.2%). Of the 85 variants that were downscaled to likely benign or variant of uncertain significance, 59.7% were missense variants outside a well-established functional site. Available clinical- or segregation data, necessary to further classify these types of variants, were in many cases insufficient to aid the classification. Our study shows that classification of variants remains challenging and may change over time. Currently, a higher level of evidence is necessary to classify a variant as pathogenic. Gene-specific guidelines may be useful to allow a more precise and uniform interpretation of the variants to accurately support clinical decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Other 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 24 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 18%
Unspecified 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 29 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,834,208
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
#368
of 1,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,096
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation: Genomic and Precision Medicine
#11
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 342,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.