The Gene Curation Coalition: A global effort to harmonize gene–disease evidence resources

References 21

1. 1.

   Richards S, Aziz N, Bale S, et al. 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. Genet Med. 2015;17(5):405-424.

   Not in our library10.1038/gim.2015.30

2. 2.

   Riggs ER, Andersen EF, Cherry AM, et al. 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). Genet Med. 2020;22(2):245-257.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41436-019-0686-8

3. 3.

   Bean LJH, Funke B, Carlston CM, et al. Diagnostic gene sequencing panels: from design to report-a technical standard of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG). Genet Med. 2020;22(3):453-461.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41436-019-0666-z

4. 4.

   Wright CF, Ware JS, Lucassen AM, et al. Genomic variant sharing: a position statement. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:22.

   Not in our library10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15090.2

5. 5.

   Azzariti DR, Riggs ER, Niehaus A, et al. Points to consider for sharing variant-level information from clinical genetic testing with ClinVar. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud. 2018;4(1).

   Not in our library10.1101/mcs.a002345

6. 6.

   Harrison SM, Dolinsky JS, Knight Johnson AE, et al. Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar. Genet Med. 2017;19(10):1096-1104.

   Not in our library10.1038/gim.2017.14

7. 7.

   Harrison SM, Dolinksy JS, Chen W, et al. Scaling resolution of variant classification differences in ClinVar between 41 clinical laboratories through an outlier approach. Hum Mutat. 2018;39(11):1641-1649.

   Not in our library10.1002/humu.23643

8. 8.

   Riggs ER, Nelson T, Merz A, et al. Copy number variant discrepancy resolution using the ClinGen dosage sensitivity map results in updated clinical interpretations in ClinVar. Hum Mutat. 2018;39(11):1650-1659.

   Not in our library10.1002/humu.23610

9. 9.

   Mighton C, Smith AC, Mayers J, et al. Data sharing to improve concordance in variant interpretation across laboratories: results from the Canadian Open Genetics Repository. J Med Genet. 2021.

   Not in our library10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107738

10. 10.

    Landrum MJ, Lee JM, Benson M, et al. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D1062-D1067.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkx1153

11. 11.

    Stark Z, Foulger RE, Williams E, et al. Scaling national and international improvement in virtual gene panel curation via a collaborative approach to discordance resolution. Am J Hum Genet. 2021;108(9):1551-1557.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.06.020

12. 12.

    Strande NT, Riggs ER, Buchanan AH, et al. Evaluating the Clinical Validity of Gene-Disease Associations: An Evidence-Based Framework Developed by the Clinical Genome Resource. Am J Hum Genet. 2017;100(6):895-906.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.04.015

13. 13.
    Standardizing terms for clinical pharmacogenetic test results: consensus terms from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) · 2017

    No notice
14. 14.

    Abouelhoda M, Faquih T, El-Kalioby M, Alkuraya FS. Revisiting the morbid genome of Mendelian disorders. Genome Biol. 2016;17(1):235.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13059-016-1102-1

15. 15.

    Shamia A, Shaheen R, Sabbagh N, Almoisheer A, Halees A, Alkuraya FS. Revisiting disease genes based on whole-exome sequencing in consanguineous populations. Hum Genet. 2015;134(9):1029-1034.

    Not in our library10.1007/s00439-015-1580-3

16. 16.

    Aloraifi F, McCartan D, McDevitt T, Green AJ, Bracken A, Geraghty J. Protein-truncating variants in moderate-risk breast cancer susceptibility genes: a meta-analysis of high-risk case-control screening studies. Cancer Genet. 2015;208(9):455-463.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cancergen.2015.06.001

17. 17.

    Taylor A, Brady AF, Frayling IM, et al. Consensus for genes to be included on cancer panel tests offered by UK genetics services: guidelines of the UK Cancer Genetics Group. J Med Genet. 2018;55(6):372-377.

    Not in our library10.1136/jmedgenet-2017-105188

18. 18.

    Rafnar T, Gudbjartsson DF, Sulem P, et al. Mutations in BRIP1 confer high risk of ovarian cancer. Nat Genet. 2011;43(11):1104-1107.

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.955

19. 19.

    Firth HV, Richards SM, Bevan AP, et al. DECIPHER: Database of Chromosomal Imbalance and Phenotype in Humans Using Ensembl Resources. Am J Hum Genet. 2009;84(4):524-533.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.03.010

20. 20.

    Kent WJ, Sugnet CW, Furey TS, et al. The human genome browser at UCSC. Genome Res. 2002;12(6):996-1006.

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.229102

21. 21.
    The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2021 · 2020

    No notice

Cited by papers we hold 4

• The Human Phenotype Ontology in 2024: phenotypes around the world · 2023
  No notice
• Genenames.org: the HGNC resources in 2023 · 2022
  No notice
• The UCSC Genome Browser database: 2023 update · 2022
  No notice
• The next-generation Open Targets Platform: reimagined, redesigned, rebuilt · 2022
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.