The dbSNP annotations are less specific than GET-Evidence: as I understand it, they're not even specifying a *genotype* -- just a *location*.<div><br></div><div>GET-Evidence does alias some dbSNP IDs to amino acid changes -- when it does this, it's assuming that the dbSNP ID refers to the nonreference amino acid change predicted.</div>
<div>For example: </div><div><a href="http://evidence.personalgenomes.org/rs429358">http://evidence.personalgenomes.org/rs429358</a></div><div>redirects to:</div><div><a href="http://evidence.personalgenomes.org/APOE-C130R">http://evidence.personalgenomes.org/APOE-C130R</a><br>
<br>I'm not sure what your question about zygosity is asking.</div><div><br></div><div>If you're looking at a SNP which is on a gene which runs in "reverse" on the genome, you'll often find inconsistency in literature based on the perspective taken when reporting the variant. For example, a variant is A or G on the reference genome, but from the perspective of the gene transcript, it's T or C (reverse complemented). You can see how this would be almost impossibly confusing if the variant happens to be C/G or A/T...</div>
<div><br></div><div>With amino acid changes it is a lot less ambiguous. Sometimes you'll find a change reported the other way in a paper (say, "APOE R130C" instead of "APOE C130R") -- in this case, the paper's attitude is that the "R" is "reference" and the "C" is variant. This can happen if they aren't interested in what the reference genome says about the issue (the paper has it's own opinion about what is "wildtype" -- because sometimes the reference genome is actually the more rare variant). </div>
<div><br></div><div>The last letter in an ID like "APOE-C130R" is the actual variant allele, the first letter is just a reference point describing the original "reference" allele. (Think of it as error checking, the "C" part of the variant isn't necessary, it's just an error check.) We've occasionally made GET-E entries for "reference" variants using the nomenclature "APOE-C130C" ... but I should note that we haven't been using these in automatic interpretation, the automatic system currently only examines differences from the reference genome.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Hope this helps.</div><div><br></div><div>-- Madeleine</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Leon Peshkin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peshkin@gmail.com">peshkin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi everyone,<br> after doing a whole bunch of curation at GET-e, I realized I am confused at a very fundamental level - which<br>
variant exactly is present in a given genome - I would appreciate some feedback and help. Let's say there is <br>
a variant <br> Notch3 P34R also known as rs1234<br>which corresponds to nucleotide C changing to G. <br> the definition of rs...... often (but not always) has all possible variants (C;C) (C;G) (G;G) like this one <br>
rs4646 <a href="http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4646" target="_blank">http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4646</a> <br> and your genome has allele frequency of 31%. <br>What exactly does it mean ? Where does zygosity annotation come<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:Verdana,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:18px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(226,228,255);display:inline!important;float:none"></span> from and why is it missing in many variants?<br>
Literature sometimes talks about rs1234 sometimes specifies nucleotide, sometimes amino acid, plus sometimes there is confusion /inconsistency among papers which strand the variant is on (if non-coding variants). <br> <br>
Is there a way to facilitate the annotation by specifying the variant in more than one way in GET-e ? <br><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>-Leon <br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>