A survey assessing adoption of the ACMG-AMP guidelines for interpreting sequence variants and identification of areas for continued improvement

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  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;17:405.

  2. 2.

    Rehm HL, Berg JS, Brooks LD, et al. ClinGen-the clinical genome resource. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2235–2242.

  3. 3.

    Amendola LM, Dorschner MO, Robertson RD. et al. Actionable exomic incidental findings in 6503 participants: challenges of variant classification. Genome Res. 2015;25:305–315.

  4. 4.

    Nykamp K, Anderson M, Powers M, et al. Sherloc: a comprehensive refinement of the ACMG–AMP variant classification criteria. Genet Med. 2017;19:1105.

  5. 5.

    Jarvik GP, Browning BL. Consideration of cosegregation in the pathogenicity classification of genomic variants. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;98:1077–1081.

  6. 6.

    Walsh MF, Ritter DI, Kesserwan C, et al. Integrating somatic variant data and biomarkers for germline variant classification in cancer predisposition genes. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1542–1552.

  7. 7.

    Ghosh R, Harrison SM, Rehm HL, et al. Updated recommendation for the benign stand‐alone ACMG/AMP criterion. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1525–1530.

  8. 8.

    Abou Tayoun AN, Pesaran T, DiStefano MT, et al. Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/AMP variant criterion. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1517–1524.

  9. 9.

    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;39:1641–1649.

  10. 10.

    Gelb BD, Cavé H, Dillon MW. et al. ClinGen’s RASopathy Expert Panel consensus methods for variant interpretation. Genet Med. 2018;20:1334–1345.

  11. 11.

    Kelly MA, Caleshu C, Morales A, et al. Adaptation and validation of the ACMG/AMP variant classification framework for MYH7-associated inherited cardiomyopathies: recommendations by ClinGen’s Inherited Cardiomyopathy Expert Panel. Genet Med. 2018;20:351.

  12. 12.

    Lee K, Krempely K, Roberts ME, et al. Specifications of the ACMG/AMP variant curation guidelines for the analysis of germline CDH1 sequence variants. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1553–1568.

  13. 13.

    Zastrow DB, Baudet H, Shen W, et al. Unique aspects of sequence variant interpretation for inborn errors of metabolism (IEM): the ClinGen IEM Working Group and the Phenylalanine Hydroxylase Gene. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1569–1580.

  14. 14.

    Mester JL, Ghosh R, Pesaran T, et al. Gene‐specific criteria for PTEN variant curation: recommendations from the ClinGen PTEN Expert Panel. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1581–1592.

  15. 15.

    Oza AM, DiStefano MT, Hemphill SE, et al. Expert specification of the ACMG/AMP variant interpretation guidelines for genetic hearing loss. Hum Mutat. 2018;39:1593–1613.

  16. 16.

    Yang S, Lincoln SE, Kobayashi Y, et al. Sources of discordance among germ-line variant classifications in ClinVar. Genet Med. 2017;19:1118.

  17. 17.

    Harrison SM, Dolinsky JS, Johnson AEK, et al. Clinical laboratories collaborate to resolve differences in variant interpretations submitted to ClinVar. Genet Med. 2017;19:1096.

  18. 18.

    Garber KB, Vincent LM, Alexander JJ, et al. Reassessment of genomic sequence variation to harmonize interpretation for personalized medicine. Am J Hum Genet. 2016;99:1140–1149.

Download references


We thank the laboratories for responding to our survey.


This study was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) under award U41HG006834. The authors received NIH funding in support of this work. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Correspondence to Heidi L. Rehm PhD.

Ethics declarations


The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niehaus, A., Azzariti, D.R., Harrison, S.M. et al. A survey assessing adoption of the ACMG-AMP guidelines for interpreting sequence variants and identification of areas for continued improvement. Genet Med 21, 1699–1701 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41436-018-0432-7

Download citation

Further reading