BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses

The clinical implications of genetic variants in BRCA1/2 in healthy and affected individuals are considerable. Variant interpretation, however, is especially challenging for missense variants. The majority of them are classified as variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Computational (in-s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of medical genetics 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.572-577
Hauptverfasser: Sadowski, Carolin E., Kohlstedt, Daniela, Meisel, Cornelia, Keller, Katja, Becker, Kerstin, Mackenroth, Luisa, Rump, Andreas, Schröck, Evelin, Wimberger, Pauline, Kast, Karin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The clinical implications of genetic variants in BRCA1/2 in healthy and affected individuals are considerable. Variant interpretation, however, is especially challenging for missense variants. The majority of them are classified as variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Computational (in-silico) predictive programs are easy to access, but represent only one tool out of a wide range of complemental approaches to classify VUS. With this single-center study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of in-silico analyses in a spectrum of different BRCA1/2 missense variants. We conducted mutation analysis of BRCA1/2 in 523 index patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Classification of the genetic variants was performed according to the German Consortium (GC)-HBOC database. Additionally, all missense variants were classified by the following three in-silico prediction tools: SIFT, Mutation Taster (MT2) and PolyPhen2 (PPH2). Overall 201 different variants, 68 of which constituted missense variants were ranked as pathogenic, neutral, or unknown. The classification of missense variants by in-silico tools resulted in a higher amount of pathogenic mutations (25% vs. 13.2%) compared to the GC-HBOC-classification. Altogether, more than fifty percent (38/68, 55.9%) of missense variants were ranked differently. Sensitivity of in-silico-tools for mutation prediction was 88.9% (PPH2), 100% (SIFT) and 100% (MT2). We found a relevant discrepancy in variant classification by using in-silico prediction tools, resulting in potential overestimation and/or underestimation of cancer risk. More reliable, notably gene-specific, prediction tools and functional tests are needed to improve clinical counseling.
ISSN:1769-7212
1878-0849
DOI:10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.08.005