Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Nov;29(11):1273-81.
doi: 10.1002/humu.20889.

Locus-specific databases and recommendations to strengthen their contribution to the classification of variants in cancer susceptibility genes

Collaborators, Affiliations

Locus-specific databases and recommendations to strengthen their contribution to the classification of variants in cancer susceptibility genes

Marc S Greenblatt et al. Hum Mutat. 2008 Nov.

Abstract

Locus-specific databases (LSDBs) are curated collections of sequence variants in genes associated with disease. LSDBs of cancer-related genes often serve as a critical resource to researchers, diagnostic laboratories, clinicians, and others in the cancer genetics community. LSDBs are poised to play an important role in disseminating clinical classification of variants. The IARC Working Group on Unclassified Genetic Variants has proposed a new system of five classes of variants in cancer susceptibility genes. However, standards are lacking for reporting and analyzing the multiple data types that assist in classifying variants. By adhering to standards of transparency and consistency in the curation and annotation of data, LSDBs can be critical for organizing our understanding of how genetic variation relates to disease. In this article we discuss how LSDBs can accomplish these goals, using existing databases for BRCA1, BRCA2, MSH2, MLH1, TP53, and CDKN2A to illustrate the progress and remaining challenges in this field. We recommend that: 1) LSDBs should only report a conclusion related to pathogenicity if a consensus has been reached by an expert panel. 2) The system used to classify variants should be standardized. The Working Group encourages use of the five class system described in this issue by Plon and colleagues. 3) Evidence that supports a conclusion should be reported in the database, including sources and criteria used for assignment. 4) Variants should only be classified as pathogenic if more than one type of evidence has been considered. 5) All instances of all variants should be recorded.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of a “Summary Sheet” from the BIC web site.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sample entry from the MMR Gene Unclassified Variant Database.

References

    1. Antonarakis SE. Recommendations for a nomenclature system for human gene mutations. Hum Mutat. 1998;11:1–3. - PubMed
    1. Auclair J, Leroux D, Desseigne F, Lasset C, Saurin JC, Joly MO, Pinson S, Xu XL, Montmain G, Ruano E, Navarro C, Puisieux A, Wang Q. Novel biallelic mutations in MSH6 and PMS2 genes: gene conversion as a likely cause of PMS2 gene inactivation. Hum Mutat. 2007;28:1084–1090. - PubMed
    1. Axton M, Human Variome Microattribution Reviews. Nature Genetics. 2008;40:1.
    1. Bell J, Bodmer D, Sistermans E, Ramsden SC. Practice Guidelines for the Interpretation and Reporting of Unclassified Variants (UV) in Clinical Molecular Genetics. UK Clinical Molecular Genetics Society Meeting Report.2007.
    1. Chan PA, Duraisamy S, Miller PJ, Newell JA, McBride C, Bond JP, Raevaara T, Ollila S, Nystrom M, Grimm A, Christodoulou J, Oetting WS, Greenblatt MS. Interpreting missense variants: comparing computational methods in human disease genes CDKN2A, MLH1, MSH2, MECP2, and tyrosinase (TYR) Hum Mutat. 2007;28:683–693. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms