Biology subjects

Wright, M. W.

Publications and source records attributed to Wright, M. W..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2019

Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework

BackgroundThe American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria (PS3/BS3) for functional assays that specified a \"strong\" level of evidence. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes is a contributor to variant interpretation discordance between laboratories. This recommendation seeks to provide a more structured approach to the assessment of functional assays for variant interpretation and guidance on the use of various levels of strength based on assay validation.\n\nMethodsThe Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Working Group used curated functional evidence from ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panel-developed rule specifications and expert opinions to refine the PS3/BS3 criteria over multiple in-person and virtual meetings. We estimated odds of pathogenicity for assays using various numbers of variant controls to determine the minimum controls required to reach moderate level evidence. Feedback from the ClinGen Steering Committee and outside experts were incorporated into the recommendations at multiple stages of development.\n\nResultsThe SVI Working Group developed recommendations for evaluators regarding the assessment of the clinical validity of functional data and a four-step provisional framework to determine the appropriate strength of evidence that can be applied in clinical variant interpretation. These steps are: 1. Define the disease mechanism; 2. Evaluate applicability of general classes of assays used in the field; 3. Evaluate validity of specific instances of assays; 4. Apply evidence to individual variant interpretation. We found that a minimum of eleven total pathogenic and benign variant controls are required to reach moderate-level evidence in the absence of rigorous statistical analysis.\n\nConclusionsThe recommendations and approach to functional evidence evaluation described here should help clarify the clinical variant interpretation process for functional assays. Further, we hope that these recommendations will help develop productive partnerships with basic scientists who have developed functional assays that are useful for interrogating the function of a variety of genes.

genetics↗

bioRxiv2018

The Clinical Imperative for Inclusivity: Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry (REA) in Genomics

The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Ancestry and Diversity Working Group highlights the need to develop guidance on race, ethnicity, and ancestry (REA) data collection and use in clinical genomics. We present quantitative and qualitative evidence to characterize: 1) acquisition of REA data via clinical laboratory requisition forms, and 2) information disparity across populations in the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD) at clinically relevant sites as determined by variants in ClinVar. Our requisition form analysis showed substantial heterogeneity in clinical laboratory ascertainment of REA, as well as marked incongruity among terms used to define REA categories. There was also striking disparity across REA populations in the amount of information available about variants at clinically relevant sites in gnomAD. European ancestral populations constituted the majority of observations (55.8%), allele counts (59.7%), and private alleles (56.1%) in gnomAD at 550 loci with \"pathogenic\" and \"likely pathogenic\" expert-reviewed variants in ClinVar. Our findings highlight the importance of implementing and supporting programs to increase diversity in genome sequencing and clinical genomics, as well as measuring uncertainty around population-level datasets that are used in variant interpretation. Finally, we suggest the need for a standardized REA data collection framework to be developed and adopted across clinical genomics.

genomics↗

bioRxiv2017

Evaluating the clinical validity of gene-disease associations: an evidence-based framework developed by the Clinical Genome Resource

With advances in genomic sequencing technology, the number of reported gene-disease relationships has rapidly expanded. However, the evidence supporting these claims varies widely, confounding accurate evaluation of genomic variation in a clinical setting. Despite the critical need to differentiate clinically valid relationships from less well-substantiated relationships, standard guidelines for such evaluation do not currently exist. The NIH-funded Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) has developed a framework to define and evaluate the clinical validity of gene-disease pairs across a variety of Mendelian disorders. In this manuscript we describe a proposed framework to evaluate relevant genetic and experimental evidence supporting or contradicting a gene-disease relationship, and the subsequent validation of this framework using a set of representative gene-disease pairs. The framework provides a semi-quantitative measurement for the strength of evidence of a gene-disease relationship which correlates to a qualitative classification: \"Definitive\", \"Strong\", \"Moderate\", \"Limited\", \"No Reported Evidence\" or \"Conflicting Evidence.\" Within the ClinGen structure, classifications derived using this framework are reviewed and confirmed or adjusted based on clinical expertise of appropriate disease experts. Detailed guidance for utilizing this framework and access to the curation interface is available on our website. This evidence-based, systematic method to assess the strength of gene-disease relationships will facilitate more knowledgeable utilization of genomic variants in clinical and research settings.

genetics↗