ArticleBMC bioinformatics2011
Ranking insertion, deletion and nonsense mutations based on their effect on genetic information.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Functional genomics for improving adoptive T-cell transfer therapies.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Review
- Review
- Systematics for types and effects of DNA variations.BMC genomics · 2018Review
- Computational Methods for the Pharmacogenetic Interpretation of Next Generation Sequencing Data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
- When loss-of-function is loss of function: assessing mutational signatures and impact of loss-of-function genetic variants.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2017Article
- Computational approaches to study the effects of small genomic variations.Journal of molecular modeling · 2015Review
- Predicting the combined effect of multiple genetic variants.Human genomics · 2015Article
- Quantitative prediction of the effect of genetic variation using hidden Markov models.BMC bioinformatics · 2014Article
- DDIG-in: discriminating between disease-associated and neutral non-frameshifting micro-indels.Genome biology · 2013Article
- Human genomic disease variants: a neutral evolutionary explanation.Genome research · 2012Review
- Predicting the effects of frameshifting indels.Genome biology · 2012Article
- Advances in quantitative trait analysis in yeast.PLoS genetics · 2012Review
- Multiple Mutations in Exon-2 of Med-12 Identified in Uterine Leiomyomata.Journal of reproduction & infertilityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenetic variations contribute to normal phenotypic differences as well as diseases, and new sequencing technologies are greatly increasing the capacity to identify these variations. Given the large number of variations now being discovered, computational methods to prioritize the functional importance of genetic variations are of growing interest. Thus far, the focus of computational tools has been mainly on the prediction of the effects of amino acid changing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and little attention has been paid to indels or nonsense SNPs that result in premature stop codons.
resultsWe propose computational methods to rank insertion-deletion mutations in the coding as well as non-coding regions and nonsense mutations. We rank these variations by measuring the extent of their effect on biological function, based on the assumption that evolutionary conservation reflects function. Using sequence data from budding yeast and human, we show that variations which that we predict to have larger effects segregate at significantly lower allele frequencies, and occur less frequently than expected by chance, indicating stronger purifying selection. Furthermore, we find that insertions, deletions and premature stop codons associated with disease in the human have significantly larger predicted effects than those not associated with disease. Interestingly, the large-effect mutations associated with disease show a similar distribution of predicted effects to that expected for completely random mutations.
conclusionsThis demonstrates that the evolutionary conservation context of the sequences that harbour insertions, deletions and nonsense mutations can be used to predict and rank the effects of the mutations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.