These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: BRCA1/2 missense mutations and the value of in-silico analyses.
    Author: Sadowski CE, Kohlstedt D, Meisel C, Keller K, Becker K, Mackenroth L, Rump A, Schröck E, Wimberger P, Kast K.
    Journal: Eur J Med Genet; 2017 Nov; 60(11):572-577. PubMed ID: 28807866.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: The clinical implications of genetic variants in BRCA1/2 in healthy and affected individuals are considerable. Variant interpretation, however, is especially challenging for missense variants. The majority of them are classified as variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Computational (in-silico) predictive programs are easy to access, but represent only one tool out of a wide range of complemental approaches to classify VUS. With this single-center study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of in-silico analyses in a spectrum of different BRCA1/2 missense variants. METHODS: We conducted mutation analysis of BRCA1/2 in 523 index patients with suspected hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Classification of the genetic variants was performed according to the German Consortium (GC)-HBOC database. Additionally, all missense variants were classified by the following three in-silico prediction tools: SIFT, Mutation Taster (MT2) and PolyPhen2 (PPH2). RESULTS: Overall 201 different variants, 68 of which constituted missense variants were ranked as pathogenic, neutral, or unknown. The classification of missense variants by in-silico tools resulted in a higher amount of pathogenic mutations (25% vs. 13.2%) compared to the GC-HBOC-classification. Altogether, more than fifty percent (38/68, 55.9%) of missense variants were ranked differently. Sensitivity of in-silico-tools for mutation prediction was 88.9% (PPH2), 100% (SIFT) and 100% (MT2). CONCLUSION: We found a relevant discrepancy in variant classification by using in-silico prediction tools, resulting in potential overestimation and/or underestimation of cancer risk. More reliable, notably gene-specific, prediction tools and functional tests are needed to improve clinical counseling.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]