2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Genome interpretation using in silico predictors of variant impact

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Estimating the effects of variants found in disease driver genes opens the door to personalized therapeutic opportunities. Clinical associations and laboratory experiments can only characterize a tiny fraction of all the available variants, leaving the majority as variants of unknown significance (VUS). In silico methods bridge this gap by providing instant estimates on a large scale, most often based on the numerous genetic differences between species. Despite concerns that these methods may lack reliability in individual subjects, their numerous practical applications over cohorts suggest they are already helpful and have a role to play in genome interpretation when used at the proper scale and context. In this review, we aim to gain insights into the training and validation of these variant effect predicting methods and illustrate representative types of experimental and clinical applications. Objective performance assessments using various datasets that are not yet published indicate the strengths and limitations of each method. These show that cautious use of in silico variant impact predictors is essential for addressing genome interpretation challenges.

          Related collections

          Most cited references360

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

          Proteins are essential to life, and understanding their structure can facilitate a mechanistic understanding of their function. Through an enormous experimental effort 1 – 4 , the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined 5 , but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences 6 , 7 . Structural coverage is bottlenecked by the months to years of painstaking effort required to determine a single protein structure. Accurate computational approaches are needed to address this gap and to enable large-scale structural bioinformatics. Predicting the three-dimensional structure that a protein will adopt based solely on its amino acid sequence—the structure prediction component of the ‘protein folding problem’ 8 —has been an important open research problem for more than 50 years 9 . Despite recent progress 10 – 14 , existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available. Here we provide the first computational method that can regularly predict protein structures with atomic accuracy even in cases in which no similar structure is known. We validated an entirely redesigned version of our neural network-based model, AlphaFold, in the challenging 14th Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP14) 15 , demonstrating accuracy competitive with experimental structures in a majority of cases and greatly outperforming other methods. Underpinning the latest version of AlphaFold is a novel machine learning approach that incorporates physical and biological knowledge about protein structure, leveraging multi-sequence alignments, into the design of the deep learning algorithm. AlphaFold predicts protein structures with an accuracy competitive with experimental structures in the majority of cases using a novel deep learning architecture.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Standards and Guidelines for the Interpretation of Sequence Variants: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology

            The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) previously developed guidance for the interpretation of sequence variants. 1 In the past decade, sequencing technology has evolved rapidly with the advent of high-throughput next generation sequencing. By adopting and leveraging next generation sequencing, clinical laboratories are now performing an ever increasing catalogue of genetic testing spanning genotyping, single genes, gene panels, exomes, genomes, transcriptomes and epigenetic assays for genetic disorders. By virtue of increased complexity, this paradigm shift in genetic testing has been accompanied by new challenges in sequence interpretation. In this context, the ACMG convened a workgroup in 2013 comprised of representatives from the ACMG, the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) to revisit and revise the standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. The group consisted of clinical laboratory directors and clinicians. This report represents expert opinion of the workgroup with input from ACMG, AMP and CAP stakeholders. These recommendations primarily apply to the breadth of genetic tests used in clinical laboratories including genotyping, single genes, panels, exomes and genomes. This report recommends the use of specific standard terminology: ‘pathogenic’, ‘likely pathogenic’, ‘uncertain significance’, ‘likely benign’, and ‘benign’ to describe variants identified in Mendelian disorders. Moreover, this recommendation describes a process for classification of variants into these five categories based on criteria using typical types of variant evidence (e.g. population data, computational data, functional data, segregation data, etc.). Because of the increased complexity of analysis and interpretation of clinical genetic testing described in this report, the ACMG strongly recommends that clinical molecular genetic testing should be performed in a CLIA-approved laboratory with results interpreted by a board-certified clinical molecular geneticist or molecular genetic pathologist or equivalent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A global reference for human genetic variation

              The 1000 Genomes Project set out to provide a comprehensive description of common human genetic variation by applying whole-genome sequencing to a diverse set of individuals from multiple populations. Here we report completion of the project, having reconstructed the genomes of 2,504 individuals from 26 populations using a combination of low-coverage whole-genome sequencing, deep exome sequencing, and dense microarray genotyping. We characterized a broad spectrum of genetic variation, in total over 88 million variants (84.7 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 3.6 million short insertions/deletions (indels), and 60,000 structural variants), all phased onto high-quality haplotypes. This resource includes >99% of SNP variants with a frequency of >1% for a variety of ancestries. We describe the distribution of genetic variation across the global sample, and discuss the implications for common disease studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                katsonis@bcm.edu
                lichtarge@bcm.edu
                Journal
                Hum Genet
                Hum Genet
                Human Genetics
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0340-6717
                1432-1203
                30 April 2022
                30 April 2022
                : 1-29
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.39382.33, ISNI 0000 0001 2160 926X, Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, , Baylor College of Medicine, ; One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030 USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.39382.33, ISNI 0000 0001 2160 926X, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, , Baylor College of Medicine, ; One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030 USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.39382.33, ISNI 0000 0001 2160 926X, Department of Biochemistry, Human Genetics and Molecular Biology, , Baylor College of Medicine, ; One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030 USA
                [4 ]GRID grid.39382.33, ISNI 0000 0001 2160 926X, Department of Pharmacology, , Baylor College of Medicine, ; One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030 USA
                [5 ]GRID grid.39382.33, ISNI 0000 0001 2160 926X, Computational and Integrative Biomedical Research Center, , Baylor College of Medicine, ; One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX 77030 USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7172-1644
                Article
                2457
                10.1007/s00439-022-02457-6
                9055222
                35488922
                66fb7baf-4d7b-4a3e-bdc5-5dde1d32d7bc
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 2 August 2021
                : 17 April 2022
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002, national institutes of health;
                Award ID: GM066099
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000009, foundation for the national institutes of health;
                Award ID: AG061105
                Award ID: AG068214
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000009, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health;
                Award ID: AG074009
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Review

                Genetics
                Genetics

                Comments

                Comment on this article