Open lincj1994 opened 3 years ago
Thanks for the suggestion, Without PS3, that could underestimate the clinical significance, as PS3 need well-established in vitro or in vivo functional studies to support,currently we have a PS3 database, but did not release it.
Thanks for the suggestion, Without PS3, that could underestimate the clinical significance, as PS3 need well-established in vitro or in vivo functional studies to support,currently we have a PS3 database, but did not release it.
Thanks for your reply! Looking forward to the update of InterVar. I just expect a high corcondance between Clinvar and InterVar, at least in those Clinvar-annotated pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants. Btw, will the PS3 database be released in the coming updated InterVar?
Thanks for the suggestion, Without PS3, that could underestimate the clinical significance, as PS3 need well-established in vitro or in vivo functional studies to support,currently we have a PS3 database, but did not release it.
Dr. Li, I think it should be assigned as PP5 by InterVar as well since it was classified as pathogenic by clinvar in this case. Why PP5 not assigned? Thank you . Lin.
Hi, I've run InterVar on a testing data. The variant below was identified as likely pathogenic:
chr17 41244106 41244106 C - BRCA1 exonic frameshift deletion clinvar:Pathogenic InterVar: Likely pathogenic PVS1=1 PS=[0, 0, 0, 0, 0] PM=[0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] PP=[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] BA1=0 BS=[0, 0, 0, 0, 0] BP=[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]
However, it was classified as pathogenic by ClinVar and PathoMAN (PVS1=1, PS3=1, PM2=1). So I strongly suggest to establish a database with validated genetic variants that are known to affect the function of genes or gene products.