Section 1: Initial Assessment of Genomic Content
|
Evidence Type |
|
Evidence |
Suggested points |
Max Score |
Points Given |
Copy number loss content (For intragenic variants, use section 2E)
|
|
1A. Contains protein-coding or other known functionally important elements |
0 (Continue Evaluation) |
0 |
|
|
1B. Does NOT contain protein-coding or any known functionally important elements |
-0.60 |
-0.60 |
Assigned points: 0
|
Section 2 : Overlap with Established/Predicted HI or Established Benign Genes/Genomic Regions
(Skip to Section 3 if your copy number loss DOES NOT overlap these types of genes/regions)
|
Overlap with ESTABLISHED HI genes or genomic regions and consideration of reason for referral
|
|
2A. Complete overlap of an established HI gene/genomic region
|
1 |
1 |
|
|
2B. Partial overlap of an established HI genomic region- The observed CNV does NOT contain the known causative gene or critical region for this established HI genomic region OR
- Unclear if known causative gene or critical region is affected OR
- No specific causative gene or critical region has been established for this HI genomic region (e.g. 1p36 deletion)
|
0 |
0 |
|
|
2C. Partial overlap with the 5’ end of an established HI gene (3’ end of the gene not involved)...
|
See categories below |
|
|
|
2C-1. …and coding sequence is involved
|
0.90 (Range : 0.45 to 1.00) |
1.00 |
|
|
2C-2. …and only the 5’ UTR is involved
|
0 (Range : 0 to 0.45) |
0.45 |
|
|
2D. Partial overlap with the 3’ end of an established HI gene (5’ end of the gene not involved)…
|
See categories below |
|
|
|
2D-1. …and only the 3’ untranslated region is involved.
|
0 (Continue evaluation) |
0 |
|
|
2D-2. …and only the last exon is involved. Other established pathogenic variants have been reported in this exon.
|
0.90 (Range : 0.45 to 0.90) |
0.90 |
|
|
2D-3. …and only the last exon is involved. No other established pathogenic variants have been reported in this exon.
|
0.30 (Range : 0 to 0.45) |
0.45 |
|
|
2D-4. …and it includes other exons in addition to the last exon. Nonsense-mediated decay is expected to occur.
|
0.90 (Range : 0.45 to 1.00) |
1.00 |
|
|
2E. Both breakpoints are within the same gene (gene-level sequence variant)
|
See ClinGen SVI working group PVS1 specifications
- PVS1= 0.90 (Range: 0.45 to 0.90)
- PVS1_Strong= 0.45 (Range: 0.30 to 0.90)
- PVS1_Moderate or PM4 (in-frame indels) = 0.30 (Range: 0.15 to 0.45)
- PVS1_Supporting = 0.15 (Range: 0 to 0.30)
- N/A = No points, but continue evaluation
|
See categories at left |
|
Overlap with ESTABLISHED benign genes or genomic regions
|
|
2F. Completely contained within an established benign CNV region |
-1 |
-1 |
|
|
2G. Overlaps an established benign CNV, but includes additional genomic material |
0 (Continue evaluation) |
0 |
|
HI Predictors
|
|
2H. Multiple HI predictors suggest that AT LEAST ONE gene in the interval is haploinsufficient (HI)
|
0.15 |
0.15 |
Assigned points: 0
|
Section 3: Evaluation of Gene Number
|
Number of protein-coding RefSeq genes wholly or partially included in the copy number loss |
|
|
Select number of genes from the pull-down menu |
Select number of genes from the pull-down menu |
Assigned points: 0
|
Section 4: Detailed Evaluation of Genomic Content Using Published Literature, Public Databases, and/or Internal Lab Data
(Skip to Section 5 if either your CNV overlapped with an established HI gene/region in Section 2, OR there have been no reports associating either the CNV or any genes within the CNV with human phenotypes caused by loss of function (LOF) or copy number loss)
|
Individual case evidence – de novo occurrences
|
|
Reported proband has either: - A complete deletion of or a LOF variant within gene encompassed by the observed copy number loss OR
- an overlapping copy number loss similar in genomic content to the observed copy number loss AND…
|
See categories below
|
|
|
|
4A. …the reported phenotype is highly specific and relatively unique to the gene or genomic region
|
Confirmed de novo: 0.45 points each Assumed de novo: 0.30 points each (Range : 0.15 to 0.45) |
0.90 (Total) |
|
|
4B. …the reported phenotype is consistent with the gene/genomic region, is highly specific, but not necessarily unique to the gene/genomic region
|
Confirmed de novo: 0.30 points each Assumed de novo: 0.15 points each (Range : 0 to 0.45) |
0.90 (Total) |
|
4C. …the reported phenotype is consistent with the gene/genomic region, but not highly specific and/or with high genetic heterogeneity
|
Confirmed de novo: 0.15 point each Assumed de novo: 0.10 points each (Range : 0 to 0.30) |
0.90 (Total) |
Individual case evidence - inconsistent phenotype
|
|
4D.…the reported phenotype is NOT consistent with what is expected for the gene/genomic region or not consistent in general
|
0 points each (Range: 0 to -0.30)
|
-0.30 (Total)
|
|
Individual case evidence – unknown inheritance
|
|
4E. Reported proband has a highly specific phenotype consistent with the gene/genomic region, but the inheritance of the variant is unknown.
|
0.10 points each (Range : 0 to 0.15) |
0.30 (total) |
|
Individual case evidence – segregation among similarly affected family members
|
|
|
Select number of segregations from the pull-down menu |
Select number of segregations from the pull-down menu |
Assigned points: 0
|
Individual case evidence - Non-Segregations
|
|
4I. Variant is NOT found in another individual in the proband’s family AFFECTED with a consistent, specific, well-defined phenotype (no known phenocopies)
|
-0.45 points per family (Range: 0 to -0.45)
|
-0.90 (Total)
|
|
|
4J. Variant IS found in another individual in the proband’s family UNAFFECTED with the specific, well-defined phenotype observed in the proband
|
-0.30 points per family (Range: 0 to -0.30)
|
-0.90 (Total)
|
|
|
4K. Variant IS found in another individual in the proband’s family UNAFFECTED with the non-specific phenotype observed in the proband
|
-0.15 points per family (Range: 0 to -0.15)
|
-0.30 (Total)
|
|
Case-control and population evidence
|
|
4L. Statistically significant increase amongst observations in cases (with a consistent, specific, well-defined phenotype) compared to controls
|
0.45 per study (Range: 0 to 0.45 per study) |
0.45 (total) |
|
|
4M. Statistically significant increase amongst observations in cases (without a consistent, non-specific phenotype OR unknown phenotype) compared to controls
|
0.30 per study (Range :0 to 0.30 per study) |
0.45 (total) |
|
|
4N. No statistically significant difference between observations in cases and controls
|
-0.90 (per study) (Range :0 to -0.90 per study) |
-0.90 (total) |
|
|
4O. Overlap with common population variation
|
-1.00 (Range :0 to -1.00) |
-1.00 (Total) |
|
Section 5: Evaluation of Inheritance Pattern/Family History for Patient Being Studied
|
Observed copy number loss is DE NOVO
|
|
5A. Use appropriate category from de novo scoring section in Section 4.
|
Use de novo scoring categories from Section 4 (4A-4D) to determine score |
0.45 |
|
Observed copy number loss is INHERITED
|
|
5B. Patient with specific, well-defined phenotype and no family history. CNV is inherited from an apparently unaffected parent.
|
-0.30 (Range : 0 to -0.45) |
-0.45 |
|
|
5C. Patient with non-specific phenotype and no family history. CNV is inherited from an apparently unaffected parent.
|
-0.15 (Range : 0 to -0.30) |
-0.30 (total) |
|
|
5D. CNV segregates with a consistent phenotype observed in the patient’s family.
|
Use segregation scoring categories from Section 4 (4F-4H) to determine score. |
0.45 |
|
Observed copy number loss – NON-SEGREGATIONS
|
|
5E. Use appropriate category from non-segregation section in Section 4.
|
Use non-segregation scoring categories from Section 4 (4I-4K) to determine score. |
-0.45 |
|
Other
|
|
5F. Inheritance information is unavailable or uninformative.
|
0 |
0 |
|
|
5G. Inheritance information is unavailable or uninformative. The patient phenotype is non-specific, but is consistent with what has been described in similar cases.
|
0.10 (Range : 0 to 0.15) |
0.15 |
|
|
5H. Inheritance information is unavailable or uninformative. The patient phenotype is highly specific and consistent with what has been described in similar cases.
|
0.30 (Range : 0 to 0.30) |
0.30 |
|