The Role of ACMG Guidelines in Variant Classification

The American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines for variant classification play a crucial role in the field of genetics, particularly in the interpretation of sequence variants. These guidelines are established to provide a standardized framework for classifying genetic variations, which is essential for accurate genetic diagnosis and personalized medicine.

The guidelines are designed to categorize genetic variants into different classes based on their likelihood of being pathogenic (disease-causing). The classification system includes categories like pathogenic, likely pathogenic, variants of uncertain significance (VUS), likely benign, and benign. This system is vital because the interpretation of genetic variants is a complex task that requires careful consideration of various types of evidence, including the gene's function, genetic data, computational predictions, and any relevant clinical information.

One of the key applications of the ACMG guidelines is in the interpretation of results from genetic testing, such as next-generation sequencing. This is particularly important in the context of hereditary diseases, where identifying a pathogenic variant can have significant implications for patient management, treatment options, and genetic counseling for the patient and their family.

For instance, in the field of cardiology, the ACMG guidelines have been adapted and validated for specific conditions like inherited cardiomyopathies associated with the MYH7 gene. The expert panel of the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen) made disease/gene-specific modifications to the ACMG/AMP framework to better classify variants related to these cardiomyopathies.

The ACMG guidelines use a scoring system that incorporates both clinical and functional evidence. Clinical evidence involves the correlation of the variant with disease or absence of disease in human populations, while functional evidence refers to the molecular consequence of a variant on gene products. This includes results from molecular and cellular experiments, as well as predictions based on variant type or complex computational algorithms. Clinical data are given more weight, as they directly describe human disease, whereas functional data are relevant to disease only as far as they correlate with disease physiology. The scoring system is semi-quantitative, where each criterion is awarded a preset number of points on benign or pathogenic scales (e.g., 1B-5B for benign, 1P-5P for pathogenic). This system helps in evaluating the overall strength of evidence for a variant. For example, the PVS1 criterion, which stands for "Null variant in a gene where loss of function is a known mechanism of disease," is considered very strong evidence for pathogenicity. However, this alone will not result in a pathogenic classification without other supporting evidence.

The guidelines also take into account allelic evidence and cosegregation, particularly in the context of Mendelian diseases. For example, the de novo occurrence of a variant is considered strong evidence of pathogenicity (PS2) under certain conditions. Cosegregation analysis, where the presence or absence of a variant in affected family members is assessed, also plays a crucial role. Lack of segregation, such as a variant inherited from an unaffected parent, is considered strong evidence that a variant is benign (BS4).

Computational and predictive criteria are used, which relate to the type of variant and its predicted impact on the protein product. This includes considerations of the protein's function, structure, and evolutionary conservation.

Furthermore, the guidelines have also been adapted for the classification of single-gene copy number variants (CNVs), which are variations in the number of copies of a particular gene. The adaptation of the guidelines for CNVs is crucial, as CNVs can have significant clinical implications and are observed in a variety of genetic disorders.

The importance of the ACMG guidelines in variant classification also extends to the technical standards for interpreting and reporting constitutional CNVs. These standards guide the evaluation of evidence in the context of CNVs detected during postnatal or prenatal testing. The guidelines offer a scoring framework for classifying CNVs into categories like pathogenic, likely pathogenic, and VUS. This classification is essential for clinicians to understand the complexity of CNV interpretation and to communicate test results effectively to patients and families.

In conclusion, the ACMG guidelines for variant classification are fundamental in the field of medical genetics. They provide a systematic approach to classifying genetic variants, which is crucial for accurate diagnosis, patient management, and genetic counseling. The adaptation and application of these guidelines across different genetic contexts, such as inherited cardiomyopathies and CNVs, highlight their versatility and critical role in advancing personalized medicine​​​​​​​​​​.

Reference:

Houge, G., Laner, A., Cirak, S., de Leeuw, N., Scheffer, H., & den Dunnen, J. T. (2022). Stepwise ABC system for classification of any type of genetic variant. European Journal of Human Genetics, 30(2), 150-159.
Richards, S., Aziz, N., Bale, S., Bick, D., Das, S., Gastier-Foster, J., ... & Rehm, H. L. (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. Genetics in medicine, 17(5), 405-423.
Nykamp, K., Anderson, M., Powers, M., Garcia, J., Herrera, B., Ho, Y. Y., ... & Topper, S. (2017). Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria. Genetics in Medicine, 19(10), 1105-1117.
Strande, N. T., Brnich, S. E., Roman, T. S., & Berg, J. S. (2018). Navigating the nuances of clinical sequence variant interpretation in Mendelian disease. Genetics in Medicine, 20(9), 918-926.
Qu, H. Q., Wang, X., Tian, L., & Hakonarson, H. (2019). Application of ACMG criteria to classify variants in the human gene mutation database. Journal of human genetics, 64(11), 1091-1095.
Brandt, T., Sack, L. M., Arjona, D., Tan, D., Mei, H., Cui, H., ... & Meck, J. M. (2020). Adapting ACMG/AMP sequence variant classification guidelines for single-gene copy number variants. Genetics in Medicine, 22(2), 336-344.
Riggs, E. R., Andersen, E. F., Cherry, A. M., Kantarci, S., Kearney, H., Patel, A., ... & Martin, C. L. (2020). Technical standards for the interpretation and reporting of constitutional copy-number variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and the Clinical Genome Resource (ClinGen).