Alleviating misclassified germline variants in underrepresented populations: A strategy using popmax
- PMID: 38522067
- DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2024.101124
Alleviating misclassified germline variants in underrepresented populations: A strategy using popmax
Abstract
Purpose: Germline variant interpretation often depends on population-matched control cohorts. This is not feasible for population groups that are underrepresented in current population reference databases.
Methods: We classify germline variants with population-matched controls for 2 ancestrally diverse cohorts of patients: 132 early-onset or familial colorectal carcinoma patients from Singapore and 100 early-onset colorectal carcinoma patients from the United States. The effects of using a population-mismatched control cohort are simulated by swapping the control cohorts used for each patient cohort, with or without the popmax computational strategy.
Results: Population-matched classifications revealed a combined 62 pathogenic or likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in 34 genes across both cohorts. Using a population-mismatched control cohort resulted in misclassification of non-P/LP variants as P/LP, driven by the absence of ancestry-specific rare variants in the control cohort. Popmax was more effective in alleviating misclassifications for the Singapore cohort than the US cohort.
Conclusion: Underrepresented population groups can suffer from higher rates of false-positive P/LP results. Popmax can partially alleviate these misclassifications, but its efficacy still depends on the degree with which the population groups are represented in the control cohort.
Keywords: Colorectal carcinoma; Germline variants; Popmax; Underrepresented populations; Variant misclassification.
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Soo-Chin Lee reports grant support/research collaborations with Pfizer, Eisai, Taiho, ACT Genomics, Bayer, and MSD; advisory board/speaker invitations from Pfizer, Novartis, Astra Zeneca, ACT Genomics, Eli Lilly, MSD, Roche, Eisai, and Daiichi-Sankyo; conference support from Amgen, Pfizer and Roche, all of which are outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders played no role in the design of the study, collection and analysis of data and decision to publish.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
