V. ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНЫЕ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ

Список литературы

1. Aradhya S. & Nussbaum R.L. Genetics in mainstream medicine: Finally within grasp to influence healthcare globally. Mol Genet Genomic Med 6, 473-480 (2018).
2. Pollie R. Genomic Sequencing Costs Set to Head Down Again. Proc. Est. Acad. Sci. Eng. (2023) doi:10.1016/j.eng.2023.02.002.
3. Meienberg J., Bruggmann R., Oexle K. & Matyas G. Clinical sequencing: is WGS the better WES? Hum. Genet. 135, 359-362 (2016).
4. Belkadi A. et al. Whole-genome sequencing is more powerful than whole-exome sequencing for detecting exome variants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 112, 5473-5478 (2015).
5. Scocchia A. et al. Clinical whole genome sequencing as a first-tier test at a resource-limited dysmorphology clinic in Mexico. NPJ Genom Med 4, 5 (2019).
6. Richards 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. 17, 405-424 (2015).
7. Rehm H.L. et al. ClinGen--the Clinical Genome Resource. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2235-2242 (2015).
8. Clinical Genome Resource. Sequence variant interpretation. https://clinicalgenome.org/working-groups/sequence-variant-interpretation/. Дата посещения: 14.04.2023.
9. Abou Tayoun, A.N. et al. Recommendations for interpreting the loss of function PVS1 ACMG/ AMP variant criterion. Hum. Mutat. 39, 1517–1524 (2018).
10. Brnich S.E. et al. Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework. Genome Med. 12, 3 (2019).
11. Kelly M.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. 20, 351-359 (2018).
12. Adler A. et al. An International, Multicentered, Evidence-Based Reappraisal of Genes Reported to Cause Congenital Long QT Syndrome. Circulation 141, 418-428 (2020).
13. Grant A.R. et al. Assessing the gene-disease association of 19 genes with the RASopathies using the ClinGen gene curation framework. Hum. Mutat. 39, 1485-1493 (2018).
14. Criteria Specification Registry. https://cspec.genome.network/cspec/ui/svi/. Дата посещения: 14.04.2023.
15. Houge G. et al. Stepwise ABC system for classification of any type of genetic variant. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 30, 150-159 (2022).
16. Austin-Tse, C.A. et al. Best practices for the interpretation and reporting of clinical whole genome sequencing. NPJ Genom Med 7, 27 (2022).
17. Ellingford J.M. et al. Recommendations for clinical interpretation of variants found in non-coding regions of the genome. Genome Med. 14, 73 (2022).
18. Bhattacharyya S. et al. Global chromatin landscapes identify candidate noncoding modifiers of cardiac rhythm. J. Clin. Invest. 133, (2023).
19. Sreenivasan V.K.A., Balachandran S. & Spielmann M. The role of single-cell genomics in human genetics. J. Med. Genet. 59, 827–839 (2022).
20. Xing X. et al. Multi-level attention graph neural network based on co-expression gene modules for disease diagnosis and prognosis. Bioinformatics 38, 2178–2186 (2022).
21. Cazares T.A. et al. maxATAC: Genome-scale transcription-factor binding prediction from ATAC-seq with deep neural networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 19, e1010863 (2023).
22. Zhang H., Xu M.S., Fan X., Chung W.K. & Shen Y. Predicting functional effect of missense variants using graph attention neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence 4, 1017–1028 (2022).
23. Katsonis P., Wilhelm K., Williams A. & Lichtarge O. Genome interpretation using in silico predictors of variant impact. Hum. Genet. 141, 1549–1577 (2022).
24. Meng L. et al. Evaluation of an Automated Genome Interpretation Model for Rare Disease Routinely Used in a Clinical Genetic Lab. Genet. Med. 100830 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.gim.2023.100830.