BMC BioinformaticsGeneticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Assigning credit where it's due: An information content score to capture the clinical value of Multiplexed Assays of Variant Effect
John Michael O. RañolaiD, Carolyn HortoniD, Tina F. PesaraniD, Shawn FayeriD, Lea M. StaritaiD, Brian H. ShirtsiD
Abstract
BackgroundA variant can be pathogenic or benign with relation to a human disease. Current classification categories from benign to pathogenic reflect a probabilistic summary of current understanding. A primary metric of clinical utility for multiplexed assays of variant effect (MAVE) is the number of variants that can be reclassified from uncertain significance (VUS). However, we hypothesized that this measure of utility underrepresents the information gained from MAVEs and that an information theory approach which includes data that does not reclassify variants will better reflect true information gain. We used this information theory approach to evaluate the information gain, in bits, for MAVEs of BRCA1, PTEN, and TP53. Here, one bit represents the amount of information required to completely classify a single variant starting from no information. ResultsBRCA1 MAVEs produced a total of 831.2 bits of information, 6.58% of the total missense information in BRCA1 and a 22-fold increase over the information that only contributed to VUS reclassification. PTEN MAVEs produced 2059.6 bits of information which represents 32.8% of the total missense information in PTEN and an 85-fold increase over the information that contributed to VUS reclassification. TP53 MAVEs produced 277.8 bits of information which represents 6.22% of the total missense information in TP53 and a 3.5-fold increase over the information that contributed to VUS reclassification. ConclusionsAn information content approach will more accurately portray information gained through MAVE mapping efforts than counting the number of variants reclassified. This information content approach may also help define the impact of modifying information definitions used to classify many variants, such as guideline rule changes.
- organism: human
- assay: GWAS summary statistics
- research focus: variant effect prediction
- approach: statistical model
- Citations
- 1
- FWCI
- 0.27
- Field percentile
- top 47%
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Clinical evidence yield as a framework for evaluating computational predictors and multiplexed assays of variant effect
Yifei Shang, Mihaly Badonyi, Joseph A. Marsh·bioRxiv·Mar 30, 2026
- Availability of benign missense variant truthsets for validation of functional assays: current status and a novel systematic approach
Charlie F Rowlands, Sophie Allen, … CanVIG-UK·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Sep 8, 2025
- Defining and Reducing Variant Classification Disparities
Moez Dawood, Shawn Fayer, … Irene Gallego Romero·Genome MedicinePeer-reviewed·Dec 3, 2024
- Validating data from Multiplex Assays of Variant Effect (MAVEs): A CanVIG-UK National Survey of NHS Clinical Scientists
Sophie Allen, Alice Garrett, … CanVIG-UK·The American Journal of Human GeneticsPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2025
- MaveMD: A functional data resource for genomic medicine
Abbye E. McEwen, Jeremy Stone, … Alan F. Rubin·Genome MedicinePeer-reviewed·Sep 29, 2026
- Why variant effect predictors and multiplexed assays agree and disagree
Benjamin Livesey, Joseph A. Marsh·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Aug 27, 2026