Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23819521›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2013

Assessment of computational methods for predicting the effects of missense mutations in human cancers.

Florian Gnad, Albion Baucom, Kiran Mukhyala, Gerard Manning, Zemin Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 213 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genetic polymorphisms of the multidrug resistance 1 gene MDR1 and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. MutationAssessor in cBioPortal.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Protein Arginine Methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) Mutations in Cancer Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  12. In Silico Examination of Single Nucleotide Missense Mutations inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Using CRISPR-Cas9 to Dissect Cancer Mutations in Cell Lines.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Florian GnadDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, Genentech Inc, South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA.
Albion Baucom
Kiran Mukhyala
Gerard Manning
Zemin Zhang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent advances in sequencing technologies have greatly increased the identification of mutations in cancer genomes. However, it remains a significant challenge to identify cancer-driving mutations, since most observed missense changes are neutral passenger mutations. Various computational methods have been developed to predict the effects of amino acid substitutions on protein function and classify mutations as deleterious or benign. These include approaches that rely on evolutionary conservation, structural constraints, or physicochemical attributes of amino acid substitutions. Here we review existing methods and further examine eight tools: SIFT, PolyPhen2, Condel, CHASM, mCluster, logRE, SNAP, and MutationAssessor, with respect to their coverage, accuracy, availability and dependence on other tools.

resultsSingle nucleotide polymorphisms with high minor allele frequencies were used as a negative (neutral) set for testing, and recurrent mutations from the COSMIC database as well as novel recurrent somatic mutations identified in very recent cancer studies were used as positive (non-neutral) sets. Conservation-based methods generally had moderately high accuracy in distinguishing neutral from deleterious mutations, whereas the performance of machine learning based predictors with comprehensive feature spaces varied between assessments using different positive sets. MutationAssessor consistently provided the highest accuracies. For certain combinations metapredictors slightly improved the performance of included individual methods, but did not outperform MutationAssessor as stand-alone tool.

conclusionsOur independent assessment of existing tools reveals various performance disparities. Cancer-trained methods did not improve upon more general predictors. No method or combination of methods exceeds 81% accuracy, indicating there is still significant room for improvement for driver mutation prediction, and perhaps more sophisticated feature integration is needed to develop a more robust tool.

Indexed as

SoftwareAmino Acid SequenceAmino Acid SubstitutionComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticHumansModels, MolecularMolecular Sequence DataMutation, MissenseNeoplasmsROC CurveSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID23819521
PMCPMC3665581
OpenAlexW1840508780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.