Quantifying the potential of functional evidence to reclassify variants of uncertain significance in the categorical and Bayesian interpretation frameworks.

Additional variant interpretation tools are required to effectively harness genomic sequencing for clinical applications. The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for clinical sequence variant interpretation, incorporating different types of data that lend varying levels of support towards a benign or pathogenic interpretation. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) are those with either contradictory or insufficient evidence, and their uncertainty complicates patient counseling and management. Functional assays may provide a solution to evidence gaps relegating variants to the VUS category, but the impact of functional evidence in this framework has not been assessed. We employ an algorithmic analysis of the ACMG/AMP combining rules to assess how the availability of strong functional evidence could theoretically improve the ability to make a benign or pathogenic assertion. We follow this with analysis of actual evidence combinations met by variants through expert curations as part of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen). We also examine the impact of functional evidence in a Bayesian adaptation of the ACMG/AMP framework. This lays the groundwork for an evidence-based prioritization of assay development and variant assessment by identifying genes and variants that may benefit the most from functional data.

Navigating the nuances of clinical sequence variant interpretation in Mendelian disease.

Understanding clinical genetic test results in the era of next-generation sequencing has become increasingly complex, necessitating clear and thorough guidelines for sequence variant interpretation. To meet this need the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) published guidelines for a systematic approach for sequence variant interpretation in 2015. This framework is intended to be adaptable to any Mendelian condition, promoting transparency and consistency in variant interpretation, yet its comprehensive nature yields important challenges and caveats that end users must understand. In this review, we address some of these nuances and discuss the evolving efforts to refine and adapt this framework. We also consider the added complexity of distinguishing between variant-level interpretations and case-level conclusions, particularly in the context of the large gene panel approach to clinical diagnostics.

A Validated Functional Analysis of Partner and Localizer of BRCA2 Missense Variants for Use in Clinical Variant Interpretation.

Clinical genetic testing readily detects germline genetic variants. Yet, the rarity of individual variants limits the evidence available for variant classification, leading to many variants of uncertain significance (VUS). VUS cannot guide clinical decisions, complicating counseling and management. In hereditary breast cancer gene PALB2, approximately 50% of clinically identified germline variants are VUS and approximately 90% of VUS are missense. Truncating PALB2 variants have homologous recombination (HR) defects and rely on error-prone nonhomologous end-joining for DNA damage repair (DDR). Recent reports show that some missense PALB2 variants may also be damaging, but most functional studies have lacked benchmarking controls required for sufficient predictive power for clinical use. Here, variant-level DDR capacity in hereditary breast cancer genes was assessed using the Traffic Light Reporter (TLR) to quantify cellular HR/nonhomologous end-joining with fluorescent markers. First, using BRCA2 missense variants of known significance as benchmarks, the TLR distinguished between normal/abnormal HR function. The TLR was then validated for PALB2 and used to test 37 PALB2 variants. Based on the TLR's ability to correctly classify PALB2 validation controls, these functional data where applied in subsequent germline variant interpretations at a moderate level of evidence toward a pathogenic interpretation (PS3_moderate) for 8 variants with abnormal DDR, or a supporting level of evidence toward a benign interpretation (BS3_supporting) for 13 variants with normal DDR.

Comparative analysis of functional assay evidence use by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) guidelines for clinical sequence variant interpretation state that "well-established" functional studies can be used as evidence in variant classification. These guidelines articulated key attributes of functional data, including that assays should reflect the biological environment and be analytically sound; however, details of how to evaluate these attributes were left to expert judgment. The Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) designates Variant Curation Expert Panels (VCEPs) in specific disease areas to make gene-centric specifications to the ACMG/AMP guidelines, including more specific definitions of appropriate functional assays. We set out to evaluate the existing VCEP guidelines for functional assays. METHODS: We evaluated the functional criteria (PS3/BS3) of six VCEPs (CDH1, Hearing Loss, Inherited Cardiomyopathy-MYH7, PAH, PTEN, RASopathy). We then established criteria for evaluating functional studies based on disease mechanism, general class of assay, and the characteristics of specific assay instances described in the primary literature. Using these criteria, we extensively curated assay instances cited by each VCEP in their pilot variant classification to analyze VCEP recommendations and their use in the interpretation of functional studies. RESULTS: Unsurprisingly, our analysis highlighted the breadth of VCEP-approved assays, reflecting the diversity of disease mechanisms among VCEPs. We also noted substantial variability between VCEPs in the method used to select these assays and in the approach used to specify strength modifications, as well as differences in suggested validation parameters. Importantly, we observed discrepancies between the parameters VCEPs specified as required for approved assay instances and the fulfillment of these requirements in the individual assays cited in pilot variant interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation of the intricacies of functional assays often requires expert-level knowledge of the gene and disease, and current VCEP recommendations for functional assay evidence are a useful tool to improve the accessibility of functional data by providing a starting point for curators to identify approved functional assays and key metrics. However, our analysis suggests that further guidance is needed to standardize this process and ensure consistency in the application of functional evidence.

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

BACKGROUND: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG)/Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) clinical variant interpretation guidelines established criteria for different types of evidence. This includes the strong evidence codes PS3 and BS3 for "well-established" functional assays demonstrating a variant has abnormal or normal gene/protein function, respectively. However, they did not provide detailed guidance on how functional evidence should be evaluated, and differences in the application of the PS3/BS3 codes are 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. METHODS: The 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 the 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. RESULTS: The 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 as follows: (1) define the disease mechanism, (2) evaluate the applicability of general classes of assays used in the field, (3) evaluate the validity of specific instances of assays, and (4) apply evidence to individual variant interpretation. We found that a minimum of 11 total pathogenic and benign variant controls are required to reach moderate-level evidence in the absence of rigorous statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.