Criteria Specification Registry

Criteria Specification (CSpec) Registry is intended to provide access to the Criteria Specifications used and applied by ClinGen Variant Curation Expert Panels and biocurators in the classification of variants.

For general information about the ClinGen Expert Panels and Variant Curation please visit: Clinical Domain Working Groups. For specific inquiries regarding content correction or adding a new criteria specification refer to the Help page.

Should you encounter any issues regarding the data displayed, lack of functionality or other problems, please let us know by contacting us via email.

Criteria Specification

ClinGen Hearing Loss Expert Panel Specifications to the ACMG/AMP Variant Interpretation Guidelines Version 1

Description : Hearing Loss ACMG Specifications v1 2018

Version : 1.0.0

PDF

Hearing Loss VCEP

Released

8/15/2018

05:00:00

Rules for TECTA, KCNQ4, SLC26A4, MYO7A, USH2A, MYO6, GJB2, COCH, CDH23

Gene: TECTA (HGNC:11720) HGNC Name: tectorin alpha Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: KCNQ4 (HGNC:6298) HGNC Name: potassium voltage-gated channel subfamily Q member 4 Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: SLC26A4 (HGNC:8818) HGNC Name: solute carrier family 26 member 4 Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: MYO7A (HGNC:7606) HGNC Name: myosin VIIA Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: USH2A (HGNC:12601) HGNC Name: usherin Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: MYO6 (HGNC:7605) HGNC Name: myosin VI Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: GJB2 (HGNC:4284) HGNC Name: gap junction protein beta 2 Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: COCH (HGNC:2180) HGNC Name: cochlin Transcripts: Disease:

Gene: CDH23 (HGNC:13733) HGNC Name: cadherin related 23 Transcripts: Disease:

Criteria & Strength Specifications
PVS1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Null variant (nonsense, frameshift, canonical +/−1 or 2 splice sites, initiation codon, single or multi-exon deletion) in a gene where loss of function (LOF) is a known mechanism of disease. Caveats: • Beware of genes where LOF is not a known disease mechanism (e.g. GFAP, MYH7). • Use caution interpreting LOF variants at the extreme 3’ end of a gene. • Use caution with splice variants that are predicted to lead to exon skipping but leave the remainder of the protein intact. • Use caution in the presence of multiple transcripts. Stand Alone Very Strong Null variant in a gene with established LOF as a disease mechanism; see PVS1_Strong, PVS1_Moderate, PVS1_Supporting for reduced evidence applications. Strong See PVS1 flow chart for PVS1_Strong variants in gene where LOF is a known mechanism of disease. Moderate See PVS1 flowchart for PVS1_Moderate variants in gene where LOF is a known mechanism of disease. Supporting See PVS1 flowchart for PVS1_Supporting variants in gene where LOF is a known mechanism of disease. Not Applicable
PS1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Same amino acid change as a previously established pathogenic variant regardless of nucleotide change. Example: Val->Leu caused by either G>C or G>T in the same codon. Caveat: Beware of changes that impact splicing rather than at the amino acid/protein level. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Same amino acid change as an established pathogenic variant; OR splice variants at same nucleotide and with similar impact prediction as previously reported pathogenic variant. Moderate Supporting Not Applicable
PS2 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary De novo (both maternity and paternity confirmed) in a patient with the disease and no family history. Note: Confirmation of paternity only is insufficient. Egg donation, surrogate motherhood, errors in embryo transfer, etc. can contribute to non-maternity. Stand Alone Very Strong 4 points per tables 5a and 5b: Examples: 2 proven de novo occurrences; OR 1 proven + 2 assumed de novo occurrences; OR 4 assumed de novo occurrences. Strong 2 points per tables 5a and 5b: Examples: 1 proven de novo occurrence; OR 2 assumed de novo occurrences. Moderate 1 point per tables 5a and 5b: Examples: 1 proven de novo occurrence (phenotype consistent but not specific to gene); OR 1 assumed de novo occurrence; OR 2 assumed de novo occurrences (phenotype/gene not specific). Supporting 0.5 points per tables 5a and 5b: Example: 1 assumed de novo occurrence (phenotype/gene not specific). Not Applicable
PS3 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Well-established in vitro or in vivo functional studies supportive of a damaging effect on the gene or gene product. Note: Functional studies that have been validated and shown to be reproducible and robust in a clinical diagnostic laboratory setting are considered the most well-established. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Knock-in mouse model demonstrates the phenotype. Moderate Validated functional studies show a deleterious effect (predefined list). Supporting Functional studies with limited validation show a deleterious effect. Not Applicable
PS4 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary The prevalence of the variant in affected individuals is significantly increased compared to the prevalence in controls. Note 1: Relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR), as obtained from case-control studies, is >5.0 and the confidence interval around the estimate of RR or OR does not include 1.0. See manuscript for detailed guidance. Note 2: In instances of very rare variants where case-control studies may not reach statistical significance, the prior observation of the variant in multiple unrelated patients with the same phenotype, and its absence in controls, may be used as moderate level of evidence. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Fisher Exact or Chi-Squared analysis shows statistical increase in cases over controls, OR Autosomal dominant: ≥15 probands with variant, and variant meets PM2. Moderate Autosomal dominant: ≥6 probands with variant, and variant meets PM2. Supporting Autosomal dominant: ≥2 probands with variant, and variant meets PM2. Not Applicable
PM1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Located in a mutational hot spot and/or critical and well-established functional domain (e.g. active site of an enzyme) without benign variation. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Mutational hot spot or well-studied functional domain without benign variation (KCNQ4 pore-forming region; Gly residues in Gly-X-Y motifs of COL11A2, COL4A3, COL4A4, and COL4A5). Supporting Not Applicable
PM2 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Absent from controls (or at extremely low frequency if recessive) in Exome Sequencing Project, 1000 Genomes or Exome Aggregation Consortium. Caveat: Population data for indels may be poorly called by next generation sequencing. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Absent/Rare in population databases (absent or ≤0.00007 (0.007%) for autosomal recessive, ≤0.00002 (0.002%) for autosomal dominant). Supporting Low MAF in population databases <0.0007 (0.07%) for autosomal recessive. Not Applicable
PM3 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary For recessive disorders, detected in trans with a pathogenic variant Note: This requires testing of parents (or offspring) to determine phase. Stand Alone Very Strong 4 points awarded from tables 7a and 7b: Example: Detected in trans in ≥4 probands with a pathogenic variant (recessive). Strong 2 points awarded from tables 7a and 7b: Example: Detected in trans in 2 probands with a pathogenic variant (recessive). Moderate 1 point awarded from tables 7a and 7b: Example: Detected in trans with a pathogenic variant (recessive). Supporting 0.5 points awarded from tables 7a and 7b: Examples: Two variants that meet PM2_Supporting detected in trans; OR a homozygous variant meeting PM2_Supporting. Not Applicable
PM4 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Protein length changes due to in-frame deletions/insertions in a non-repeat region or stop-loss variants. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Protein length change due to an in-frame deletion or insertion that are not located in repetitive regions. Supporting Not Applicable
PM5 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Novel missense change at an amino acid residue where a different missense change determined to be pathogenic has been seen before. Example: Arg156His is pathogenic; now you observe Arg156Cys. Caveat: Beware of changes that impact splicing rather than at the amino acid/protein level. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Missense change at same codon as two different pathogenic missense variants. Moderate Missense change at same codon as another pathogenic missense variant. Supporting Not Applicable
PM6 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Assumed de novo, but without confirmation of paternity and maternity. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate See PS2 above. Supporting Not Applicable
PP1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Co-segregation with disease in multiple affected family members in a gene definitively known to cause the disease. Note: May be used as stronger evidence with increasing segregation data. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Segregation in three affected relatives for recessive and five affected relatives for dominant. Moderate Segregation in two affected relatives for recessive and four affected relatives for dominant. Supporting Segregation in one affected relative for recessive and two affected relatives for dominant. Not Applicable
PP2 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Missense variant in a gene that has a low rate of benign missense variation and where missense variants are a common mechanism of disease. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Not Applicable Comments: Advise against using this rule because there are few such genes that this would apply to, particularly genes associated to autosomal recessive hearing loss.
PP3 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Multiple lines of computational evidence support a deleterious effect on the gene or gene product (conservation, evolutionary, splicing impact, etc.). Caveat: As many in silico algorithms use the same or very similar input for their predictions, each algorithm should not be counted as an independent criterion. PP3 can be used only once in any evaluation of a variant. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting REVEL score ≥0.7, or predicted impact to splicing using MaxEntScan. Not Applicable
PP4 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Patient’s phenotype or family history is highly specific for a disease with a single genetic etiology. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Patient's phenotype highly specific for gene or fully sequenced gene set (see specifications in Table 7). Not Applicable
PP5
Original ACMG Summary Reputable source recently reports variant as pathogenic, but the evidence is not available to the laboratory to perform an independent evaluation. Not Applicable This criterion is not for use as recommended by the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation VCEP Review Committee. PubMed : 29543229
BA1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Allele frequency is above 5% in Exome Sequencing Project, 1000 Genomes or Exome Aggregation Consortium. Stand Alone MAF of ≥0.005 (0.5%) for autosomal recessive; MAF of ≥0.001 (0.1%) for autosomal dominant. Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Not Applicable
BS1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Allele frequency is greater than expected for disorder. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong MAF of ≥0.003 (0.3%) for autosomal recessive; MAF of ≥0.0002 (0.02%) for autosomal dominant. Likely benign, provided there is no conflicting evidence. Moderate Supporting MAF of ≥0.0007 (0.07%) for autosomal recessive. No BS1_Supporting criteria for autosomal dominant. Not Applicable
BS2 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Observed in a healthy adult individual for a recessive (homozygous), dominant (heterozygous), or X-linked (hemizygous) disorder, with full penetrance expected at an early age. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Observation of variant (biallelic with known pathogenic variant for recessive) in controls inconsistent with disease penetrance. Moderate Supporting Not Applicable
BS3 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Well-established in vitro or in vivo functional studies show no damaging effect on protein function or splicing. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Functional study shows no deleterious effect (predefined list). Not Applicable
BS4 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Lack of segregation in affected members of a family. Caveat: The presence of phenocopies for common phenotypes (i.e. cancer, epilepsy) can mimic lack of segregation among affected individuals. Also, families may have more than one pathogenic variant contributing to an autosomal dominant disorder, further confounding an apparent lack of segregation. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Non-segregation with disease. Moderate Supporting Not Applicable
BP1 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Missense variant in a gene for which primarily truncating variants are known to cause disease. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Not Applicable
BP2 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Observed in trans with a pathogenic variant for a fully penetrant dominant gene/disorder or observed in cis with a pathogenic variant in any inheritance pattern. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Observed in trans with a dominant variant/observed in cis with a pathogenic variant (use with caution). Not Applicable Comments: Do not use.
BP3 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary In frame-deletions/insertions in a repetitive region without a known function. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting In-frame indels in repeat region without known function. Not Applicable
BP4 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Multiple lines of computational evidence suggest no impact on gene or gene product (conservation, evolutionary, splicing impact, etc) Caveat: As many in silico algorithms use the same or very similar input for their predictions, each algorithm cannot be counted as an independent criterion. BP4 can be used only once in any evaluation of a variant. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Computational evidence suggests no impact; REVEL score ≤0.15 or no impact to splicing in MaxEntScan. Not Applicable
BP5 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary Variant found in a case with an alternate molecular basis for disease. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Variant in an autosomal dominant gene found in a patient with an alternate explanation. Not Applicable
BP6
Original ACMG Summary Reputable source recently reports variant as benign, but the evidence is not available to the laboratory to perform an independent evaluation. Not Applicable This criterion is not for use as recommended by the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation VCEP Review Committee. PubMed : 29543229
BP7 PVS1 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PM1 PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 BA1 BS1 BS2 BS3 BS4 BP1 BP2 BP3 BP4 BP5 BP6 BP7 Files References
Original ACMG Summary A synonymous variant for which splicing prediction algorithms predict no impact to the splice consensus sequence nor the creation of a new splice site AND the nucleotide is not highly conserved. Stand Alone Very Strong Strong Moderate Supporting Silent variant with no predicted impact to splicing. Not Applicable