• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

使用 ACMG-AMP 变异解释指南对九个基因组实施研究进行变异分类一致性评估。

Variant Classification Concordance using the ACMG-AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines across Nine Genomic Implementation Research Studies.

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Genetics, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

出版信息

Am J Hum Genet. 2020 Nov 5;107(5):932-941. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.09.011. Epub 2020 Oct 26.

DOI:10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.09.011
PMID:33108757
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7675005/
Abstract

Harmonization of variant pathogenicity classification across laboratories is important for advancing clinical genomics. The two CLIA-accredited Electronic Medical Record and Genomics Network sequencing centers and the six CLIA-accredited laboratories and one research laboratory performing genome or exome sequencing in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research Consortium collaborated to explore current sources of discordance in classification. Eight laboratories each submitted 20 classified variants in the ACMG secondary finding v.2.0 genes. After removing duplicates, each of the 158 variants was annotated and independently classified by two additional laboratories using the ACMG-AMP guidelines. Overall concordance across three laboratories was assessed and discordant variants were reviewed via teleconference and email. The submitted variant set included 28 P/LP variants, 96 VUS, and 34 LB/B variants, mostly in cancer (40%) and cardiac (27%) risk genes. Eighty-six (54%) variants reached complete five-category (i.e., P, LP, VUS, LB, B) concordance, and 17 (11%) had a discordance that could affect clinical recommendations (P/LP versus VUS/LB/B). 21% and 63% of variants submitted as P and LP, respectively, were discordant with VUS. Of the 54 originally discordant variants that underwent further review, 32 reached agreement, for a post-review concordance rate of 84% (118/140 variants). This project provides an updated estimate of variant concordance, identifies considerations for LP classified variants, and highlights ongoing sources of discordance. Continued and increased sharing of variant classifications and evidence across laboratories, and the ongoing work of ClinGen to provide general as well as gene- and disease-specific guidance, will lead to continued increases in concordance.

摘要

实验室间变异致病性分类的协调对于推进临床基因组学至关重要。CLIA 认证的电子病历和基因组网络测序中心以及六个 CLIA 认证的实验室和一个从事基因组或外显子组测序的研究实验室共同协作,探索当前分类不一致的原因。八个实验室每个实验室提交了 20 个在 ACMG 二级发现 v.2.0 基因中分类的变异。在去除重复项后,每个 158 个变体都由另外两个实验室使用 ACMG-AMP 指南进行注释和独立分类。评估了三个实验室之间的总体一致性,并通过电话会议和电子邮件对不一致的变体进行了审查。提交的变体集包括 28 个 P/LP 变体、96 个 VUS 和 34 个 LB/B 变体,主要在癌症(40%)和心脏(27%)风险基因中。86 个(54%)变体达到了完全五类(即 P、LP、VUS、LB、B)的一致性,17 个(11%)变体的不一致性可能影响临床建议(P/LP 与 VUS/LB/B)。分别有 21%和 63%的提交为 P 和 LP 的变体与 VUS 不一致。在进一步审查的 54 个最初不一致的变体中,有 32 个达成了一致,审查后一致性率为 84%(118/140 个变体)。该项目提供了变体一致性的最新估计,确定了 LP 分类变体的考虑因素,并强调了当前不一致的来源。实验室间持续增加和增加变体分类和证据的共享,以及 ClinGen 提供一般以及基因和疾病特异性指导的持续工作,将导致一致性的持续提高。

相似文献

1
Variant Classification Concordance using the ACMG-AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines across Nine Genomic Implementation Research Studies.使用 ACMG-AMP 变异解释指南对九个基因组实施研究进行变异分类一致性评估。
Am J Hum Genet. 2020 Nov 5;107(5):932-941. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2020.09.011. Epub 2020 Oct 26.
2
Performance of ACMG-AMP Variant-Interpretation Guidelines among Nine Laboratories in the Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium.临床测序探索性研究联盟中九个实验室对ACMG-AMP变异解读指南的执行情况。
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Jun 2;98(6):1067-1076. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.03.024. Epub 2016 May 12.
3
Adaptation of ACMG-ClinGen Technical Standards for Copy Number Variant Interpretation Concordance.ACMG-ClinGen技术标准在拷贝数变异解读一致性方面的适应性调整。
Front Genet. 2022 Mar 10;13:829728. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.829728. eCollection 2022.
4
Specifications of the ACMG/AMP Variant Classification Guidelines for Germline Variant Curation.ACMG/AMP 变异分类指南用于种系变异的临床解释:规范
Hum Mutat. 2023;2023. doi: 10.1155/2023/9537832. Epub 2023 Mar 29.
5
Adapting ACMG/AMP sequence variant classification guidelines for single-gene copy number variants.适应 ACMG/AMP 序列变异分类指南用于单基因拷贝数变异。
Genet Med. 2020 Feb;22(2):336-344. doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0655-2. Epub 2019 Sep 19.
6
Disease-specific ACMG/AMP guidelines improve sequence variant interpretation for hearing loss.特定疾病的 ACMG/AMP 指南可改善听力损失相关序列变异的解读。
Genet Med. 2021 Nov;23(11):2208-2212. doi: 10.1038/s41436-021-01254-2. Epub 2021 Jul 6.
7
Data sharing to improve concordance in variant interpretation across laboratories: results from the Canadian Open Genetics Repository.数据共享以提高实验室间变异解释的一致性:来自加拿大开放遗传资源库的结果。
J Med Genet. 2022 Jun;59(6):571-578. doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107738. Epub 2021 Apr 19.
8
Evaluation of ACMG-Guideline-Based Variant Classification of Cancer Susceptibility and Non-Cancer-Associated Genes in Families Affected by Breast Cancer.基于美国医学遗传学与基因组学学会(ACMG)指南对乳腺癌家族中癌症易感性基因和非癌症相关基因变异分类的评估
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 May 5;98(5):801-817. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.02.024.
9
Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar.临床实验室合作解决提交给 ClinVar 的变异解释差异。
Genet Med. 2017 Oct;19(10):1096-1104. doi: 10.1038/gim.2017.14. Epub 2017 Mar 16.
10
Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant curation guidelines for the analysis of germline CDH1 sequence variants.ACMG/AMP 变体解读指南用于分析种系 CDH1 序列变异的规范。
Hum Mutat. 2018 Nov;39(11):1553-1568. doi: 10.1002/humu.23650.

引用本文的文献

1
HerediVar and HerediClassify: tools for streamlining genetic variant classification in hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.HerediVar和HerediClassify:用于简化遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌基因变异分类的工具。
Hum Genomics. 2025 Jul 4;19(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s40246-025-00787-w.
2
Rapid Whole-Genome Sequencing in Critically Ill Infants and Children with Suspected, Undiagnosed Genetic Diseases: Evolution to a First-Tier Clinical Laboratory Test in the Era of Precision Medicine.对疑似患有未确诊遗传病的危重症婴幼儿进行快速全基因组测序:在精准医学时代向一线临床实验室检测的演变。
Children (Basel). 2025 Mar 28;12(4):429. doi: 10.3390/children12040429.
3
The Prenatal Diagnosis and Perinatal Management of Congenital Long QT Syndrome: A Comprehensive Literature Review and Recent Updates.先天性长QT综合征的产前诊断与围产期管理:一项全面的文献综述及最新进展
J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2025 Apr 14;12(4):156. doi: 10.3390/jcdd12040156.
4
Navigating Genetic Testing in Nephrology: Options and Decision-Making Strategies.肾内科中的基因检测导航:选择与决策策略
Kidney Int Rep. 2024 Dec 27;10(3):673-695. doi: 10.1016/j.ekir.2024.12.020. eCollection 2025 Mar.
5
Reasons and Resolutions for Inconsistent Variant Interpretation.变异解读不一致的原因及解决方案。
Hum Mutat. 2023 May 22;2023:4955235. doi: 10.1155/2023/4955235. eCollection 2023.
6
Interpretation and classification of FBN1 variants associated with Marfan syndrome: consensus recommendations from the Clinical Genome Resource's FBN1 variant curation expert panel.与马凡综合征相关的FBN1基因变异的解读与分类:临床基因组资源FBN1基因变异管理专家小组的共识建议
Genome Med. 2024 Dec 31;16(1):154. doi: 10.1186/s13073-024-01423-3.
7
Tracking updates in clinical databases increases efficiency for variant reanalysis.追踪临床数据库中的更新可提高变异重新分析的效率。
Genet Med Open. 2024 Mar 19;2:101841. doi: 10.1016/j.gimo.2024.101841. eCollection 2024.
8
There will always be variants of uncertain significance. Analysis of VUSs.总会存在意义未明的变异体。意义未明变异体的分析。
NAR Genom Bioinform. 2024 Nov 21;6(4):lqae154. doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqae154. eCollection 2024 Dec.
9
Clinical Variant Reclassification in Hereditary Disease Genetic Testing.遗传性疾病基因检测中的临床变异再分类。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Nov 4;7(11):e2444526. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.44526.
10
The Biggest Struggle: Navigating Trust and Uncertainty in Genetic Variant Interpretation.最大的挑战:遗传变异解读中的信任与不确定性。
Public Health Genomics. 2024;27(1):228-232. doi: 10.1159/000542274. Epub 2024 Oct 25.

本文引用的文献

1
Frequency of genomic secondary findings among 21,915 eMERGE network participants.eMERGE 网络 21915 名参与者中的基因组二级发现频率。
Genet Med. 2020 Sep;22(9):1470-1477. doi: 10.1038/s41436-020-0810-9. Epub 2020 Jun 17.
2
Assessment of Interlaboratory Variation in the Interpretation of Genomic Test Results in Patients With Epilepsy.评估癫痫患者基因组检测结果解读中的实验室间变异。
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Apr 1;3(4):e203812. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3812.
3
Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework.使用 ACMG/AMP 序列变异解读框架推荐功能证据 PS3/BS3 标准的应用。
Genome Med. 2019 Dec 31;12(1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13073-019-0690-2.
4
Variant interpretation is a component of clinical practice among genetic counselors in multiple specialties.变异解读是多个专业遗传咨询师临床实践的一个组成部分。
Genet Med. 2020 Apr;22(4):785-792. doi: 10.1038/s41436-019-0705-9. Epub 2019 Nov 22.
5
Is 'likely pathogenic' really 90% likely? Reclassification data in ClinVar.ClinVar 中的再分类数据:“可能致病”真的有 90%的可能性吗?
Genome Med. 2019 Nov 21;11(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s13073-019-0688-9.
6
The "All of Us" Research Program.“我们所有人”研究项目。
N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 7;381(19):1884. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1912496.
7
ClinGen Myeloid Malignancy Variant Curation Expert Panel recommendations for germline RUNX1 variants.ClinGen 髓系恶性肿瘤变异体校正专家组关于胚系 RUNX1 变异体的建议。
Blood Adv. 2019 Oct 22;3(20):2962-2979. doi: 10.1182/bloodadvances.2019000644.
8
Harmonizing Clinical Sequencing and Interpretation for the eMERGE III Network.协调 eMERGE III 网络的临床测序和解读。
Am J Hum Genet. 2019 Sep 5;105(3):588-605. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.07.018. Epub 2019 Aug 22.
9
The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners.REDCap 联盟:构建软件平台合作伙伴的国际社区。
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208. Epub 2019 May 9.
10
Quantitative approaches to variant classification increase the yield and precision of genetic testing in Mendelian diseases: the case of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.定量方法可提高孟德尔疾病遗传检测的产量和精度:以肥厚型心肌病为例。
Genome Med. 2019 Jan 29;11(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13073-019-0616-z.