Evaluation of literature searching tools for curation of mismatch repair gene variants in hereditary colon cancer. Issue 1 (18th February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kaushik, Varun; Plazzer, John‐Paul; Macrae, Finlay
• Is Part Of: Advanced genetics. Volume 2:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-02-18
• Subjects: cancer -- DNA mismatch repair -- Lynch syndrome -- genetic variation classification -- database management systems -- information storage and retrieval -- literature searching; Genetics -- Periodicals; Genomics -- Periodicals; Genomics; Genetics; Genetics; Genomics; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 576.5
• DOI: 10.1002/ggn2.10039
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2641-6573

Abstract

Abstract: Pathogenic constitutional genomic variants in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes are the drivers of Lynch syndrome; optimal variant interpretation is required for the management of suspected and confirmed cases. The International Society for Hereditary Gastrointestinal Tumours (InSiGHT) provides expert classifications for MMR variants for the US National Human Genome Research Institute's (NHGRI) ClinGen initiative and interprets variants with discordant classifications and those of uncertain significance (VUSs). Given the onerous nature of extracting information related to variants, literature searching tools which harness artificial intelligence may aid in retrieving information to allow optimum variant classification. In this study, we described the nature of discordance in a sample of 80 variants from a list of variants requiring updating by InSiGHT for ClinGen by comparing their existing InSiGHT classifications with the various submissions for each variant on the US National Centre for Biotechnology Information's (NCBI) ClinVar database. To identify the potential value of a literature searching tool in extracting information related to classification, all variants were searched for using a traditional method (Google Scholar) and literature searching tool (Mastermind) independently. Descriptive statistics were used to compare: the number of articles before and after screening for relevance and the number of relevant articles unique to either method. Relevance was defined as containing the variant in question as well as data informing variant interpretation. A total of 916 articles were returned by both methods and Mastermind averaged four relevant articles per search compared to Google Scholar's three. Of relevant Mastermind articles, 193/308 (62.7%) were unique to it, compared to 87/202, (43.0%) for Google Scholar. For 24 variants, either or both methods found no information. All 6/80 (20%) variants with pathogenic or likely pathogenic InSiGHT classifications have newer VUS assertions on ClinVar. Our study demonstrated that for a sample of variants with varying discordant interpretations, Mastermind was able to return on average, a more relevant and unique literature search. Google Scholar was able to retrieve information that Mastermind did not, which supports a conclusion that Mastermind could play a complementary role in literature searching for classification. This work will aid InSiGHT in its role of classifying MMR variants.