ArticleScientific reports2026
Interpreting rare missense variants in ABCB4 using ACMG recommended in silico tools, bespoke prediction algorithm Vasor and AlphaMissense.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intrahepatic Cholestasis of Pregnancy (ICP) is the most common pregnancy-related liver disorder. ABCB4 heterozygous variants are implicated in ICP, but interpretation of rare variants remains challenging, leading to many variants of uncertain significance. This study compares predictions from multiple in silico tools on nine heterozygous missense variants identified in women with ICP. Using the Genomics England Research Environment, 253 women with ICP and whole-genome sequencing data were analysed. Variants with minor allele frequency < 0.05 were filtered, and nine rare missense variants were assessed using SIFT, PolyPhen, CADD, Vasor (ABCB4-specific), and AlphaMissense. Only 44% (4/9) of variants had consistent classification across all tools. Published functional studies often conflicted with predictions. For example, T175A showed no detectable effect in HepG2/HEK293 cells but was classified as likely pathogenic by Vasor and benign by AlphaMissense. Similarly, N510S impacted protein stability functionally and was deemed likely pathogenic by Vasor but benign by AlphaMissense. In silico tools show conflicting predictions for ABCB4 rare variants, highlighting the difficulty of classification without functional or segregation data as well as the heavy reliance on computational predictions.
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.