2020
DOI: 10.22541/au.160682407.73344037/v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

VIP-HL: Semi-automated ACMG/AMP variant interpretation platform for genetic hearing loss

Abstract: The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics, and the Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) have proposed a set of evidence-based guidelines to support sequence variant interpretation. The ClinGen hearing loss expert panel (HL-EP) introduced further specifications into the ACMG/AMP framework for genetic hearing loss. This study developed a tool named VIP-HL, aiming to semi-automate the HL ACMG/AMP rules. VIP-HL aggregates information from external databases to automate 13 out of 24 ACMG/AMP r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…10 Of 24 ACMG/AMP criteria, population (PM2, BA1, BS1 and BS2) and computational (PVS1, PM4, PP3, BP3, BP4, and BP7) data criteria were automatically curated by Variant Interpretation Platform for Genetic Hearing Loss (VIP-HL). 18; 19 Criteria related to allelic data (PM3, PS2/PM6 and BP2), functional data (PS3 and BS3), segregation data (PP1 and BS4), phenotypic (PP4 and BP5) and case/control (PS4) data were manually curated from public literature by experienced biocurators. Considering that there are no mutational hot spots or well-studied functional domains without benign variation in GJB2 , 10 PM1 was not activated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…10 Of 24 ACMG/AMP criteria, population (PM2, BA1, BS1 and BS2) and computational (PVS1, PM4, PP3, BP3, BP4, and BP7) data criteria were automatically curated by Variant Interpretation Platform for Genetic Hearing Loss (VIP-HL). 18; 19 Criteria related to allelic data (PM3, PS2/PM6 and BP2), functional data (PS3 and BS3), segregation data (PP1 and BS4), phenotypic (PP4 and BP5) and case/control (PS4) data were manually curated from public literature by experienced biocurators. Considering that there are no mutational hot spots or well-studied functional domains without benign variation in GJB2 , 10 PM1 was not activated.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data sets. GenOtoScope variant classification was compared to similar tools: (1) Inter-Var, a tool for variant classification tested across a spectrum of phenotypes [13]; (2) VIP-HL, the recently published tool for hearing loss [11]. We benchmarked the accuracy and precision of variant classification on two data sets.…”
Section: Variant Classificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recently published bioinformatics tool, VIP-HL [ 11 ], automates 13 out of the 24 evidence-based criteria specified for HL. However, VIP-HL is an online tool that accepts only a single variant per time, thus hindering the automatic and time-efficient interpretation of all variants of WES files for a set of investigated patients, for a heterogeneous condition as HL.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Application of these adjusted criteria has been shown to achieve better classification performance compared to the standard evidence-based criteria for known HL-related variants [6]. A recently published bioinformatics tool, VIP-HL [8], automates 13 out of the 24 evidence-based criteria specified for HL. However, VIP-HL is an online tool that accepts only a single variant per time, thus hindering the automatic and time-efficient interpretation of all variants of December 23, 2021 2/26 WES files for a set of investigated patients, for a heterogeneous condition as HL.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Data setsGenOtoScope variant classification was compared to similar tools: (1) InterVar, a tool for variant classification tested across a spectrum of phenotypes[7]; (2) VIP-HL, the recently published tool for hearing loss[8]. We benchmarked the accuracy and precision of variant classification on two data sets.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%