Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28812538›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2017

Development of pathogenicity predictors specific for variants that do not comply with clinical guidelines for the use of computational evidence.

Elena Álvarez de la Campa, Natàlia Padilla, Xavier de la Cruz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Variation benchmark datasets: update, criteria, quality and applications.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
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

3 authors.

Elena Álvarez de la CampaResearch Unit in Translational Bioinformatics, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Natàlia PadillaResearch Unit in Translational Bioinformatics, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Xavier de la CruzResearch Unit in Translational Bioinformatics, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Research (VHIR), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. xavier.delacruz@vhir.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStrict guidelines delimit the use of computational information in the clinical setting, due to the still moderate accuracy of in silico tools. These guidelines indicate that several tools should always be used and that full coincidence between them is required if we want to consider their results as supporting evidence in medical decision processes. Application of this simple rule certainly decreases the error rate of in silico pathogenicity assignments. However, when predictors disagree this rule results in the rejection of potentially valuable information for a number of variants. In this work, we focus on these variants of the protein sequence and develop specific predictors to help improve the success rate of their annotation.

resultsWe have used a set of 59,442 protein sequence variants (15,723 pathological and 43,719 neutral) from 228 proteins to identify those cases for which pathogenicity predictors disagree. We have repeated this process for all the possible combinations of five known methods (SIFT, PolyPhen-2, PON-P2, CADD and MutationTaster2). For each resulting subset we have trained a specific pathogenicity predictor. We find that these specific predictors are able to discriminate between neutral and pathogenic variants, with a success rate different from random. They tend to outperform the constitutive methods but this trend decreases as the performance of the constitutive predictor improves (e.g. with PON-P2 and PolyPhen-2). We also find that specific methods outperform standard consensus methods (Condel and CAROL).

conclusionFocusing development efforts on the case of variants for which known methods disagree we may obtain pathogenicity predictors with improved performances. Although we have not yet reached the success rate that allows the use of this computational evidence in a clinical setting, the simplicity of the approach indicates that more advanced methods may reach this goal in a close future.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationGenetic VariationComputational BiologyHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansProteinsSequence Analysis, ProteinVirulenceProteinsIn silico pathogenicity predictorsMissense variantsMolecular diagnosticsNext-generation sequencingProtein sequence variants

Identifiers

PMID28812538
PMCPMC5558188

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.