Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

question concerning implementation HGVS 3´ rule of variants #46

Open
ktrien opened this issue Sep 7, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

question concerning implementation HGVS 3´ rule of variants #46

ktrien opened this issue Sep 7, 2021 · 0 comments

Comments

@ktrien
Copy link

ktrien commented Sep 7, 2021

Dear,

We are currently using transvar as annotator in our pipeline.
We are really satisfied with the software.

However, we have a question concerning the support of both left-alignment and right-alignment convention in reporting indels and duplications.

In a recent EQC-program, we identified a deletion in the EGFR gene as follows:
c.2240_2257del <-> HGVS c.2237_2257delinsTAT
p.(Leu747_Pro753delinsSer) <-> HGVS p.(Glu746_Pro753delinsValSer)

Following the HGVS guidelines, a 3’ rule for alignment is prefered. When reading the TRANSVAR manual, we believe reporting the correct variant is possible with transvar as it supports both left-alignment and right-alignment convention.

On p15 of the transvar manual (2.5.4 release), an example is shown in which a difference between left and right-aligned identifiers is shown. I now have 3 questions

  • Is the term ‘unalign_cDNA´ used for right_align_cDNA? I only see left_align_cDNA in the examples of the manual?
  • If we look in our raw data for this specific deletion mentioned above, there is no difference between the left_align_cDNA and unalign_cDNA description
    left_align_gDNA=g.55242470_55242487del18;unaligned_gDNA=g.55242470_55242487del18;left_align_cDNA=c.2240_2257del18;unalign_cDNA=c.2240_2257del18;dbxref=GeneID:1956,HGNC:3236,HPRD:00579,MIM:131550;aliases=NP_005219;source=RefSeq
  • Might this issue be solved if we upgrade from 2.4.1 to 2.5.4 version of the software or is there another option we have to include in the code?

Looking forward hearing from you,
Thanks in advance,

Kind regards,
Katrien

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant