ABSTRACT
The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) framework for classifying variants uses six evidence categories related to the splicing potential of variants: PVS1 (null variant in a gene where loss-of-function is the mechanism of disease), PS3 (functional assays show damaging effect on splicing), PP3 (computational evidence supports a splicing effect), BS3 (functional assays show no damaging effect on splicing), BP4 (computational evidence suggests no splicing impact), and BP7 (silent change with no predicted impact on splicing). However, the lack of guidance on how to apply such codes has contributed to variation in the specifications developed by different Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) Variant Curation Expert Panels. The ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation (SVI) Splicing Subgroup was established to refine recommendations for applying ACMG/AMP codes relating to splicing data and computational predictions. Our study utilised empirically derived splicing evidence to: 1) determine the evidence weighting of splicing-related data and appropriate criteria code selection for general use, 2) outline a process for integrating splicing-related considerations when developing a gene-specific PVS1 decision tree, and 3) exemplify methodology to calibrate bioinformatic splice prediction tools. We propose repurposing of the PVS1_Strength code to capture splicing assay data that provide experimental evidence for variants resulting in RNA transcript(s) with loss of function. Conversely BP7 may be used to capture RNA results demonstrating no impact on splicing for both intronic and synonymous variants, and for missense variants if protein functional impact has been excluded. Furthermore, we propose that the PS3 and BS3 codes are applied only for well-established assays that measure functional impact that is not directly captured by RNA splicing assays. We recommend the application of PS1 based on similarity of predicted RNA splicing effects for a variant under assessment in comparison to a known Pathogenic variant. The recommendations and approaches for consideration and evaluation of RNA assay evidence described aim to help standardise variant pathogenicity classification processes and result in greater consistency when interpreting splicing-based evidence.
Competing Interest Statement
A.L., L.M.V., S.H., H.Z., R.K., D.B., A.C., A.T., and T.P. are employed by fee-for-service laboratories performing clinical sequencing services. The authors declare no additional conflicts of interest beyond their employment affiliation.
Funding Statement
ABS and MTP were supported by Australian NHMRC Funding (APP177524). LCW and GARW were supported by Health Research Council funding (19/460 and 22/187) and the Mackenzie Charitable Foundation. We thank Hadley Northcott for his contribution to the development of the BRCA1/BRCA2 splicing dataset. MdlH is supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Plan Nacional de I+D+I 2013-2016, ISCIII (PI20/00110) co-funded by FEDER from Regional Development European Funds (European Union). ABB and SMH were supported by NIH grant U24 HG006834. ClinGen is primarily funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) with co-funding from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), through the following grants: U24 HG009649 (to Baylor/Stanford), U24 HG006834 (to Broad/Geisinger), and U24 HG009650 (to UNC/Kaiser). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
