iVar, an Interpretation-Oriented Tool to Manage the Update and Revision of Variant Annotation and Classification
- PMID: 33800487
- PMCID: PMC8001268
- DOI: 10.3390/genes12030384
iVar, an Interpretation-Oriented Tool to Manage the Update and Revision of Variant Annotation and Classification
Abstract
The rapid evolution of Next Generation Sequencing in clinical settings, and the resulting challenge of variant reinterpretation given the constantly updated information, require robust data management systems and organized approaches. In this paper, we present iVar: a freely available and highly customizable tool with a user-friendly web interface. It represents a platform for the unified management of variants identified by different sequencing technologies. iVar accepts variant call format (VCF) files and text annotation files and elaborates them, optimizing data organization and avoiding redundancies. Updated annotations can be periodically re-uploaded and associated with variants as historically tracked attributes, i.e., modifications can be recorded whenever an updated value is imported, thus keeping track of all changes. Data can be visualized through variant-centered and sample-centered interfaces. A customizable search function can be exploited to periodically check if pathogenicity-related data of a variant has changed over time. Patient recontacting ensuing from variant reinterpretation is made easier by iVar through the effective identification of all patients present in the database carrying a specific variant. We tested iVar by uploading 4171 VCF files and 1463 annotation files, obtaining a database of 4166 samples and 22,569 unique variants. iVar has proven to be a useful tool with good performance in terms of collecting and managing data from a medium-throughput laboratory.
Keywords: clinical genomics; data management; database; next-generation sequencing; variant annotation; variant classification.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Figures
References
-
- Frey M.K., Kim S.H., Bassett R.Y., Martineau J., Dalton E., Chern J.-Y., Blank S.V. Rescreening for genetic mutations using multi-gene panel testing in patients who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening. Gynecol. Oncol. 2015;139:211–215. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.08.006. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Lincoln S.E., Kobayashi Y., Anderson M.J., Yang S., Desmond A.J., Mills M.A., Nilsen G.B., Jacobs K.B., Monzon F.A., Kurian A.W., et al. A Systematic Comparison of Traditional and Multigene Panel Testing for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Genes in More Than 1000 Patients. J. Mol. Diagn. 2015;17:533–544. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.04.009. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Bombard Y., Brothers K.B., Fitzgerald-Butt S., Garrison N.A., Jamal L., James C.A., Jarvik G.P., McCormick J.B., Nelson T.N., Ormond K.E., et al. The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2019;104:578–595. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2019.02.025. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Miscellaneous