Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 259

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Recommendations for clinical interpretation of variants found in non-coding regions of the genome

Open access
Ellingford, Jamie M., Ahn, Joo Wook, Bagnall, Richard D., Baralle, Diana, Barton, Stephanie, Campbell, Chris, Downes, Kate, Ellard, Sian, Duff-Farrier, Celia, FitzPatrick, David R., Greally, John M., Ingles, Jodie, Krishnan, Neesha, Lord, Jenny, Martin, Hilary C., Newman, William G., O’Donnell-Luria, Anne, Ramsden, Simon C., Rehm, Heidi L., Richardson, Ebony, Singer-Berk, Moriel, Taylor, Jenny C., Williams, Maggie, Wood, Jordan C., Wright, Caroline F., Harrison, Steven M., Whiffin, Nicola·2022·Genome Medicine

Abstract

Background: The majority of clinical genetic testing focuses almost exclusively on regions of the genome that directly encode proteins. The important role of variants in non-coding regions in penetrant disease is, however, increasingly being demonstrated, and the use of whole genome sequencing in clinical diagnostic settings is rising across a large range of genetic disorders. Despite this, there is no existing guidance on how current guidelines designed primarily for variants in protein-coding regions should be adapted for variants identified in other genomic contexts. Methods: We convened a panel of nine clinical and research scientists with wide-ranging expertise in clinical variant interpretation, with specific experience in variants within non-coding regions. This panel discussed and refined an initial draft of the guidelines which were then extensively tested and reviewed by external groups. Results: We discuss considerations specifically for variants in non-coding regions of the genome. We outline how to define candidate regulatory elements, highlight examples of mechanisms through which non-coding region variants can lead to penetrant monogenic disease, and outline how existing guidelines can be adapted for the interpretation of these variants. Conclusions: These recommendations aim to increase the number and range of non-coding region variants that can be clinically interpreted, which, together with a compatible phenotype, can lead to new diagnoses and catalyse the discovery of novel disease mechanisms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13073-022-01073-3

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 83 references

Cited by

See all 259

Metadata

Authors
Ellingford, J. M., Ahn, J. W., Bagnall, R. D., Baralle, D., Barton, S., Campbell, C., Downes, K., Ellard, S., Duff-Farrier, C., FitzPatrick, D. R., Greally, J. M., Ingles, J., Krishnan, N., Lord, J., Martin, H. C., Newman, W. G., O’Donnell-Luria, A., Ramsden, S. C., Rehm, H. L., Richardson, E., Singer-Berk, M., Taylor, J. C., Williams, M., Wood, J. C., Wright, C. F., Harrison, S. M., & Whiffin, N.
Venue
Genome Medicine
Published
2022-07-19
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
73-73
ISSN
1756-994X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4285796131
Cited by
259
References
83
FWCI
28.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Recommendations for clinical interpretation of variants found in non-coding regions of the genome. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13073-022-01073-3
The paper
Ellingford, J. M., Ahn, J. W., Bagnall, R. D., Baralle, D., Barton, S., Campbell, C., Downes, K., Ellard, S., Duff-Farrier, C., FitzPatrick, D. R., Greally, J. M., Ingles, J., Krishnan, N., Lord, J., Martin, H. C., Newman, W. G., O’Donnell-Luria, A., Ramsden, S. C., Rehm, H. L., . . . Whiffin, N. (2022). Recommendations for clinical interpretation of variants found in non-coding regions of the genome. Genome Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-022-01073-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.