A computer-assisted method for pathogenicity assessment and genetic reporting of variants stored in the Australian Inherited Retinal Disease Register

  • Emily Huynh
  • John De Roach
  • Terri McLaren
  • Jennifer Thompson
  • Hannah Montgomery
  • Caitlyn Kap
  • Ling Hoffmann
  • Tina Lamey
Technical Paper

Abstract

The assignment of pathogenicity to variants suspected of causing an inherited retinal disease and the subsequent creation of molecular genetic reports sent to clinical geneticists and ophthalmologists has traditionally been time-consuming and subject to error and ambiguity. The purpose of this paper is to describe a computer-assisted method we have developed for (1) assessment of the predicted pathogenicity of genetic variants identified in patients diagnosed with an inherited retinal disease and (2) the incorporation of these results into the Australian Inherited Retinal Disease Register and DNA Bank’s databases, for the production of molecular genetics reports. This method has significantly accelerated the assessment of variant pathogenicity prediction and subsequent patient report generation for the Australian Inherited Retinal Disease Register and DNA Bank, and has reduced the potential for human error. The principles described in this paper may be applied in any situation where genetic variants and patient information are stored in a well-organised database.

Keywords

Pathogenicity prediction Genetic analysis Molecular genetics report Inherited retinal disease 

References

  1. 1.
    De Roach JN, McLaren TL, Paterson RL, O’Brien EC, Hoffmann L, Mackey DA, Hewitt AW, Lamey TM (2013) Establishment and evolution of the Australian Inherited Retinal Disease Register and DNA Bank. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 41(5):476–483. doi:10.1111/ceo.12020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    LUMC Mutalyzer. https://mutalyzer.nl/. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  3. 3.
    Mutation Taster. http://www.mutationtaster.org/. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  4. 4.
    Sorting intolerant from tolerant. http://sift.bii.a-star.edu.sg/. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  5. 5.
    PolyPhen-2. http://genetics.bwh.harvard.edu/pph2/. Accessed 17 Dec 2015
  6. 6.
    Den Dunnen JT, Antonarakis SE (2000) Mutation nomenclature extensions and suggestions to describe complex mutations: a discussion. Hum Mutat 15(1):7–12. doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-1004(200001)15:1<7:aid-humu4>3.0.co;2-n CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, Bick D, Das S, Gastier-Foster J, Grody WW, Hegde M, Lyon E, Spector E, Voelkerding K, Rehm HL (2015) Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med 17(5):405–423. doi:10.1038/gim.2015.30 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ExAC Browser. http://exac.broadinstitute.org/. Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  9. 9.
    1000 Genomes. http://browser.1000genomes.org/index.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  10. 10.
    NHLBI exome sequencing project. http://evs.gs.washington.edu/EVS/. Accessed 18 Dec 2015
  11. 11.
    Wildeman M, van Ophuizen E, den Dunnen JT, Taschner PEM (2008) Improving sequence variant descriptions in mutation databases and literature using the Mutalyzer sequence variation nomenclature checker. Hum Mutat 29(1):6–13. doi:10.1002/humu.20654 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Huynh
    • 1
    • 2
  • John De Roach
    • 1
  • Terri McLaren
    • 1
  • Jennifer Thompson
    • 1
  • Hannah Montgomery
    • 1
  • Caitlyn Kap
    • 1
  • Ling Hoffmann
    • 1
  • Tina Lamey
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian Inherited Retinal Disease Register and DNA Bank, Department of Medical Technology and PhysicsSir Charles Gairdner HospitalPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Ophthalmology and Visual ScienceUniversity of Western Australia/Lions Eye InstitutePerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations