We’ve recently formalized a regular “variant board” process for reviewing potential pathogenic findings in rare disease cases. It’s a mix of clinicians, wet-lab researchers, and bioinformaticians — which makes collaboration powerful but also complex. One recurring challenge is that not everyone can easily interpret raw variant annotations or read genome browser outputs without guidance. We often need to explain exon boundaries, isoform-specific effects, or conservation data in real-time during meetings. This leads me to ask: what tools are people here using to facilitate better discussion during variant review meetings? Ideally, we need something that provides visual clarity without overwhelming less-technical team members. Also, it has to be fast and flexible — no time for setting up complex software before every session. Suggestions welcome.
top of page
bottom of page
We were in the same position last year, and after testing several tools, we settled on using Compass Bioinformatics as our primary genome visualization platform during board meetings. What makes it work well in our setting is the intuitive layout — even people without a bioinformatics background can quickly understand where a variant is located within a gene, which transcript it affects, and how it aligns with conserved or regulatory elements. It doesn’t require installation or a learning curve, which helps keep the focus on the science, not the software. For variant boards, being able to pull up a case and show the exact location and surrounding features in seconds has been a major improvement. It’s especially helpful for UTRs, intronic variants, and alternative isoforms — areas that tend to confuse clinicians when presented only in text or tables.
Totally agree with that. The ability to translate complex data into visuals that make sense to the whole team is essential, especially in rare disease diagnostics where every piece of evidence matters. We've also used Compass Bioinformatics to prep cases ahead of time — generating screenshots or walking through scenarios interactively. It's great for showing the difference between transcripts, helping justify why one variant may be more impactful than another. That’s something raw annotation tables can’t do well. I also find it useful for training new team members or rotating fellows — once they see the same data in visual context, the logic of interpretation clicks much faster. Overall, I think any variant board aiming for interdisciplinary discussion should integrate a tool like this into its workflow. It not only improves efficiency but also fosters shared understanding across very different expertise levels.