A proposed general variant classification framework using chronic pancreatitis as a disease model
Emmanuelle MassoniD, Wen‐Bin ZouiD, Emmanuelle GéniniD, D.N. CooperiD, Gérald Le GaciD, Yann FichouiD, Na PuiD, Vinciane ReboursiD, Claude FéreciD, Zhuan LiaoiD, Jian‐Min CheniD
Abstract
The widely used ACMG-AMP variant classification categories (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, uncertain significance, likely benign and benign) were specifically developed for variants in Mendelian disease genes, classifying variants discretely with respect to a simple causal versus benign dichotomy. A general variant classification framework taking into account the continuum of clinical phenotypes, the continuum of the variants genetic effects and the different pathological roles of the genes implicated, is however lacking. Herein, we used chronic pancreatitis (CP), which clinically manifests as hereditary, familial, idiopathic or alcoholic forms, as a disease model. Based upon cross-gene and cross-variant comparisons, we firstly assigned the four most studied CP genes (PRSS1, CFTR, SPINK1 and CTRC) to two distinct categories in terms of causality: CP-causing (PRSS1 and SPINK1) and CP-predisposing (CFTR and CTRC). We then employed two new classificatory categories, "predisposing" and "likely predisposing", to replace ACMG-AMPs "pathogenic" and "likely pathogenic" categories in CP-predisposing genes, thereby classifying all pathologically relevant variants in these genes as "predisposing". In the case of CP-causing genes, the two new classificatory categories served to expand the five ACMG-AMP categories whilst two thresholds (allele frequency and functional) were introduced to discriminate pathogenic from predisposing variants. Our proposed five-category (predisposing, likely predisposing, uncertain significance, likely benign and benign) and seven-category (pathogenic, likely pathogenic, predisposing, likely predisposing, uncertain significance, likely benign and benign) frameworks (with respect to disease-predisposing and disease-causing genes, respectively) retain the backbone of the five ACMG-AMP categories while rendering them readily applicable to variant classification in other disease contexts.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 100
- FWCI
- 12.68
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- Organism
- Research Focus
- Approach
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
- Validation of the ACMG/AMP guidelines-based seven-category variant classification system
Jian‐Min Chen, Emmanuelle Masson, … Claude Férec·medRxiv·Jan 23, 2023
- Systematic large-scale application of ClinGen InSiGHT APC-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification criteria substantially alleviates the burden of variants of uncertain significance in ClinVar and LOVD databases
Xiaoyu Yin, Marcy E. Richardson, … Stefan Aretz·medRxiv·May 3, 2024
- Genetic analysis of the STIM1 gene in chronic pancreatitis
Emmanuelle Masson, Wen‐Bin Zou, … Claude Férec·bioRxiv·Jul 8, 2019
- Informing Variant Assessment using Structured Evidence from Prior Classifications (PS1, PM5, and PVS1 Sequence Variant Interpretation Criteria)
Vineel Bhat, Ivan A. Adzhubei, … Christopher A. Cassa·Genetics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Oct 28, 2022
- Mismatch repair gene specifications to the ACMG/AMP classification criteria: Consensus recommendations from the InSiGHT ClinGen Hereditary Colorectal Cancer / Polyposis Variant Curation Expert Panel
John‐Paul Plazzer, Finlay Macrae, … Andreas Laner·medRxiv·May 13, 2024
- Evaluation of Bayesian Point-Based System on the Variant Classification of Hereditary Cancer Predisposition Genes
Mohammad K. Eldomery, Jamie L. Maciaszek, … Patrick R. Blackburn·Genetics in MedicinePeer-reviewed·Sep 19, 2024