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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of medical genetics 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.572-577 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 577 |
---|---|
container_issue | 11 |
container_start_page | 572 |
container_title | European journal of medical genetics |
container_volume | 60 |
creator | Sadowski, Carolin E. Kohlstedt, Daniela Meisel, Cornelia Keller, Katja Becker, Kerstin Mackenroth, Luisa Rump, Andreas Schröck, Evelin Wimberger, Pauline Kast, Karin |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.08.005 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1929103853</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1769721216305687</els_id><sourcerecordid>1929103853</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-ff82ac79a890bf8dc1e7983ac6e749b1f4cfb18715d6c4faa68da2319700fbe33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMozjj6B1xIl25ak7TNA0QYB18wIIiuQ5reaEofY9MOzL83ZUaXru6Fe87hng-hS4ITggm7qRKoms-EYsITLBKM8yM0J4KLGItMHoedMxlzSugMnXlfYZwKQuUpmlEhMBeMzdHd_dtqSW5o1DjvofUQNeOgB9e1PtJtGQ1fEG11PULU2ci1sXe1M1046XrnwZ-jE6trDxeHuUAfjw_vq-d4_fr0slquY5PmbIitFVQbLrWQuLCiNAS4FKk2DHgmC2IzY4vwOclLZjKrNROlpimRHGNbQJou0PU-d9N33yP4QYV_DdS1bqEbvSKSShLq5ZOU7qWm77zvwapN7xrd7xTBauKmKjVxUxM3hYUK3ILp6pA_Fg2Uf5ZfUEFwuxdAaLl10CtvHLQGSteDGVTZuf_yfwBLkX3X</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1929103853</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Sadowski, Carolin E. ; Kohlstedt, Daniela ; Meisel, Cornelia ; Keller, Katja ; Becker, Kerstin ; Mackenroth, Luisa ; Rump, Andreas ; Schröck, Evelin ; Wimberger, Pauline ; Kast, Karin</creator><creatorcontrib>Sadowski, Carolin E. ; Kohlstedt, Daniela ; Meisel, Cornelia ; Keller, Katja ; Becker, Kerstin ; Mackenroth, Luisa ; Rump, Andreas ; Schröck, Evelin ; Wimberger, Pauline ; Kast, Karin</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1769-7212</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-0849</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.08.005</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28807866</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Masson SAS</publisher><subject>BRCA1 Protein - genetics ; BRCA2 Protein - genetics ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Breast Neoplasms - genetics ; Computer Simulation ; Female ; Genetic Testing - methods ; Humans ; Mutation, Missense ; Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Ovarian Neoplasms - genetics ; Predictive Value of Tests</subject><ispartof>European journal of medical genetics, 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.572-577</ispartof><rights>2017 Elsevier Masson SAS</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-ff82ac79a890bf8dc1e7983ac6e749b1f4cfb18715d6c4faa68da2319700fbe33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-ff82ac79a890bf8dc1e7983ac6e749b1f4cfb18715d6c4faa68da2319700fbe33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.08.005$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28807866$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sadowski, Carolin E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohlstedt, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meisel, Cornelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keller, Katja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Kerstin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mackenroth, Luisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rump, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schröck, Evelin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wimberger, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kast, Karin</creatorcontrib><title>BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses</title><title>European journal of medical genetics</title><addtitle>Eur J Med Genet</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>BRCA1 Protein - genetics</subject><subject>BRCA2 Protein - genetics</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Computer Simulation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genetic Testing - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mutation, Missense</subject><subject>Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Ovarian Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><issn>1769-7212</issn><issn>1878-0849</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEtLxDAUhYMozjj6B1xIl25ak7TNA0QYB18wIIiuQ5reaEofY9MOzL83ZUaXru6Fe87hng-hS4ITggm7qRKoms-EYsITLBKM8yM0J4KLGItMHoedMxlzSugMnXlfYZwKQuUpmlEhMBeMzdHd_dtqSW5o1DjvofUQNeOgB9e1PtJtGQ1fEG11PULU2ci1sXe1M1046XrnwZ-jE6trDxeHuUAfjw_vq-d4_fr0slquY5PmbIitFVQbLrWQuLCiNAS4FKk2DHgmC2IzY4vwOclLZjKrNROlpimRHGNbQJou0PU-d9N33yP4QYV_DdS1bqEbvSKSShLq5ZOU7qWm77zvwapN7xrd7xTBauKmKjVxUxM3hYUK3ILp6pA_Fg2Uf5ZfUEFwuxdAaLl10CtvHLQGSteDGVTZuf_yfwBLkX3X</recordid><startdate>201711</startdate><enddate>201711</enddate><creator>Sadowski, Carolin E.</creator><creator>Kohlstedt, Daniela</creator><creator>Meisel, Cornelia</creator><creator>Keller, Katja</creator><creator>Becker, Kerstin</creator><creator>Mackenroth, Luisa</creator><creator>Rump, Andreas</creator><creator>Schröck, Evelin</creator><creator>Wimberger, Pauline</creator><creator>Kast, Karin</creator><general>Elsevier Masson SAS</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201711</creationdate><title>BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses</title><author>Sadowski, Carolin E. ; Kohlstedt, Daniela ; Meisel, Cornelia ; Keller, Katja ; Becker, Kerstin ; Mackenroth, Luisa ; Rump, Andreas ; Schröck, Evelin ; Wimberger, Pauline ; Kast, Karin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-ff82ac79a890bf8dc1e7983ac6e749b1f4cfb18715d6c4faa68da2319700fbe33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>BRCA1 Protein - genetics</topic><topic>BRCA2 Protein - genetics</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Computer Simulation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genetic Testing - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mutation, Missense</topic><topic>Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Ovarian Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sadowski, Carolin E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kohlstedt, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meisel, Cornelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Keller, Katja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Becker, Kerstin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mackenroth, Luisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rump, Andreas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schröck, Evelin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wimberger, Pauline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kast, Karin</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of medical genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sadowski, Carolin E.</au><au>Kohlstedt, Daniela</au><au>Meisel, Cornelia</au><au>Keller, Katja</au><au>Becker, Kerstin</au><au>Mackenroth, Luisa</au><au>Rump, Andreas</au><au>Schröck, Evelin</au><au>Wimberger, Pauline</au><au>Kast, Karin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses</atitle><jtitle>European journal of medical genetics</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Med Genet</addtitle><date>2017-11</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>60</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>572</spage><epage>577</epage><pages>572-577</pages><issn>1769-7212</issn><eissn>1878-0849</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Masson SAS</pub><pmid>28807866</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.08.005</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1769-7212 |
ispartof | European journal of medical genetics, 2017-11, Vol.60 (11), p.572-577 |
issn | 1769-7212 1878-0849 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1929103853 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete |
subjects | BRCA1 Protein - genetics BRCA2 Protein - genetics Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis Breast Neoplasms - genetics Computer Simulation Female Genetic Testing - methods Humans Mutation, Missense Ovarian Neoplasms - diagnosis Ovarian Neoplasms - genetics Predictive Value of Tests |
title | BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T05%3A39%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=BRCA1/2%20missense%20mutations%20and%20the%20value%20of%20in-silico%20analyses&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20medical%20genetics&rft.au=Sadowski,%20Carolin%20E.&rft.date=2017-11&rft.volume=60&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=572&rft.epage=577&rft.pages=572-577&rft.issn=1769-7212&rft.eissn=1878-0849&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejmg.2017.08.005&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1929103853%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1929103853&rft_id=info:pmid/28807866&rft_els_id=S1769721216305687&rfr_iscdi=true |