ReviewCurrent genomics2017
Management of Gene Variants of Unknown Significance: Analysis Method and Risk Assessment of the
Review in Current genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emerging Role of ctDNA Fragmentomics and Epigenetic Signatures in the Early Detection, Minimal Residual Disease Assessment, and Precision Monitoring of Renal Cell Carcinoma.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Developing a disease-specific annotation protocol for VHL gene curation using Hypothes.is.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023Article
- Hereditary Endocrine Tumor Registries.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2023Article
- Large scale genotype- and phenotype-driven machine learning in Von Hippel-Lindau disease.Human mutation · 2022Article
- Zebrafish Is a Powerful Tool for Precision Medicine Approaches to Neurological Disorders.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2022Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of the pathogenicity of a gene variant of unknown significance (VUS) is crucial for molecular diagnosis and genetic counseling, but can be challenging. This is especially so in phenotypically variable diseases, such as von Hippel-Lindau disease (vHL). vHL is caused by germline mutations in the VHL gene, which predispose to the development of multiple tumors such as central nervous system hemangioblastomas and renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
objectiveWe propose a method for the evaluation of VUS pathogenicity through our experience with the VHL missense mutation c.241C>T (p.P81S).
method1) Clinical evaluation of known variant carriers: We evaluated a family of five VHL p.P81S carriers, as well as the clinical characteristics of all the p.P81S carriers reported in the literature; 2) Evaluation of tumor tissue via genetic analysis, histology, and immunohistochemistry (IHC); 3) Assessment of the variant's impact on protein structure and function, using multiple databases, in silico algorithms, and reports of functional studies.
resultsOnly one family member had clinical signs of vHL with early-onset RCC. IHC analysis showed no VHL protein expressed in the tumor, consistent with biallelic VHL inactivation. The majority of in silico algorithms reported p.P81S as possibly pathogenic in relation to vHL or RCC, but there were discrepancies. Functional studies suggest that p.P81S impairs the VHL protein's function.
conclusionThe VHL p.P81S mutation is most likely a low-penetrant pathogenic variant predisposing to RCC development. We suggest the above-mentioned method for VUS evaluation with use of different methods, especially a variety of in silico methods and tumor tissue analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.