» Articles » PMID: 34045478

In Silico Analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Missense Variants and the Relevance in Molecular Genetic Testing

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2021 May 28
PMID 34045478
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Over the years since the genetic testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been conducted for research and later introduced into clinical practice, a high number of missense variants have been reported in the literature and deposited in public databases. Polymorphism Phenotyping v2 (PolyPhen-2) and Sorting Intolerant from Tolerant (SIFT) are two widely applied bioinformatics tools used to assess the functional impacts of missense variants. A total of 2605 BRCA1 and 4763 BRCA2 variants from the ClinVar database were analysed with PolyPhen2 and SIFT. When SIFT was evaluated alongside PolyPhen-2 HumDiv and HumVar, it had shown top performance in terms of negative predictive value (NPV) (100%) and sensitivity (100%) for ClinVar classified benign and pathogenic BRCA1 variants. Both SIFT and PolyPhen-2 HumDiv achieved 100% NPV and 100% sensitivity in prediction of pathogenicity of the BRCA2 variants. Agreement was achieved in prediction outcomes from the three tested approaches in 55.04% and 68.97% of the variants of unknown significance (VUS) for BRCA1 and BRCA2, respectively. The performances of PolyPhen-2 and SIFT in predicting functional impacts varied across the two genes. Due to lack of high concordance in prediction outcomes among the two tested algorithms, their usefulness in classifying the pathogenicity of VUS identified through molecular testing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 is hence limited in the clinical setting.

Citing Articles

AI-derived comparative assessment of the performance of pathogenicity prediction tools on missense variants of breast cancer genes.

Ahmad R, Ali B, Al-Jasmi F, Al Dhaheri N, Al Turki S, Kizhakkedath P Hum Genomics. 2024; 18(1):99.

PMID: 39256852 PMC: 11389290. DOI: 10.1186/s40246-024-00667-9.


Prediction of and Variants with Conflicting Clinical Interpretation in a Cohort of Breast Cancer Patients.

Stella S, Vitale S, Massimino M, Martorana F, Tornabene I, Tomarchio C Genes (Basel). 2024; 15(7).

PMID: 39062721 PMC: 11276437. DOI: 10.3390/genes15070943.


Potential new cancer biomarkers revealed by quantum chemistry associated with bioinformatics in the study of selectin polymorphisms.

Rabi L, Valente D, de Souza Teixeira E, Peres K, de Oliveira Almeida M, Bufalo N Heliyon. 2024; 10(7):e28830.

PMID: 38586333 PMC: 10998122. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28830.


Population-based BRCA germline mutation screening in the Han Chinese identifies individuals at risk of BRCA mutation-related cancer: experience from a clinical diagnostic center from greater Shanghai area.

Wu Z, Zhang Q, Jin Y, Zhang X, Chen Y, Yang C BMC Cancer. 2024; 24(1):411.

PMID: 38566028 PMC: 10988807. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12089-w.


A review of genetic variant databases and machine learning tools for predicting the pathogenicity of breast cancer.

Ahmad R, Ali B, Al-Jasmi F, Sinnott R, Al Dhaheri N, Mohamad M Brief Bioinform. 2023; 25(1).

PMID: 38149678 PMC: 10782903. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbad479.


References
1.
Eccles D, Mitchell G, Monteiro A, Schmutzler R, Couch F, Spurdle A . BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing-pitfalls and recommendations for managing variants of uncertain clinical significance. Ann Oncol. 2015; 26(10):2057-65. PMC: 5006185. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdv278. View

2.
Vallee M, Francy T, Judkins M, Babikyan D, Lesueur F, Gammon A . Classification of missense substitutions in the BRCA genes: a database dedicated to Ex-UVs. Hum Mutat. 2011; 33(1):22-8. PMC: 3478957. DOI: 10.1002/humu.21629. View

3.
Ernst C, Hahnen E, Engel C, Nothnagel M, Weber J, Schmutzler R . Performance of in silico prediction tools for the classification of rare BRCA1/2 missense variants in clinical diagnostics. BMC Med Genomics. 2018; 11(1):35. PMC: 5870501. DOI: 10.1186/s12920-018-0353-y. View

4.
Plon S, Eccles D, Easton D, Foulkes W, Genuardi M, Greenblatt M . Sequence variant classification and reporting: recommendations for improving the interpretation of cancer susceptibility genetic test results. Hum Mutat. 2008; 29(11):1282-91. PMC: 3075918. DOI: 10.1002/humu.20880. View

5.
Walters-Sen L, Hashimoto S, Lamb Thrush D, Reshmi S, Gastier-Foster J, Astbury C . Variability in pathogenicity prediction programs: impact on clinical diagnostics. Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2015; 3(2):99-110. PMC: 4367082. DOI: 10.1002/mgg3.116. View