Importance of standard nomenclature for SMN1 small intragenic ("subtle") mutations

Challenges in the association of human single nucleotide polymorphism mentions with unique database identifiers

BACKGROUND

Most information on genomic variations and their associations with phenotypes are covered exclusively in scientific publications rather than in structured databases. These texts commonly describe variations using natural language; database identifiers are seldom mentioned. This complicates the retrieval of variations, associated articles, as well as information extraction, e. g. the search for biological implications. To overcome these challenges, procedures to map textual mentions of variations to database identifiers need to be developed.

RESULTS

This article describes a workflow for normalization of variation mentions, i.e. the association of them to unique database identifiers. Common pitfalls in the interpretation of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mentions are highlighted and discussed. The developed normalization procedure achieves a precision of 98.1 % and a recall of 67.5% for unambiguous association of variation mentions with dbSNP identifiers on a text corpus based on 296 MEDLINE abstracts containing 527 mentions of SNPs. The annotated corpus is freely available at http://www.scai.fraunhofer.de/snp-normalization-corpus.html.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable approaches usually focus on variations mentioned on the protein sequence and neglect problems for other SNP mentions. The results presented here indicate that normalizing SNPs described on DNA level is more difficult than the normalization of SNPs described on protein level. The challenges associated with normalization are exemplified with ambiguities and errors, which occur in this corpus.

Standard mutation nomenclature in molecular diagnostics: practical and educational challenges

To translate basic research findings into clinical practice, it is essential that information about mutations and variations in the human genome are communicated easily and unequivocally. Unfortunately, there has been much confusion regarding the description of genetic sequence variants. This is largely because research articles that first report novel sequence variants do not often use standard nomenclature, and the final genomic sequence is compiled over many separate entries. In this article, we discuss issues crucial to clear communication, using examples of genes that are commonly assayed in clinical laboratories. Although molecular diagnostics is a dynamic field, this should not inhibit the need for and movement toward consensus nomenclature for accurate reporting among laboratories. Our aim is to alert laboratory scientists and other health care professionals to the important issues and provide a foundation for further discussions that will ultimately lead to solutions.