ArticleScientific reports2022
In-silico phenotype prediction by normal mode variant analysis in TUBB4A-related disease.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computational normal mode analysis accurately replicates the activity and specificity profiles of CRISPR-Cas9 and high-fidelity variants.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
TUBB4A-associated disorder is a rare condition affecting the central nervous system. It displays a wide phenotypic spectrum, ranging from isolated late-onset torsion dystonia to a severe early-onset disease with developmental delay, neurological deficits, and atrophy of the basal ganglia and cerebellum, therefore complicating variant interpretation and phenotype prediction in patients carrying TUBB4A variants. We applied entropy-based normal mode analysis (NMA) to investigate genotype-phenotype correlations in TUBB4A-releated disease and to develop an in-silico approach to assist in variant interpretation and phenotype prediction in this disorder. Variants included in our analysis were those reported prior to the conclusion of data collection for this study in October 2019. All TUBB4A pathogenic missense variants reported in ClinVar and Pubmed, for which associated clinical information was available, and all benign/likely benign TUBB4A missense variants reported in ClinVar, were included in the analysis. Pathogenic variants were divided into five phenotypic subgroups. In-silico point mutagenesis in the wild-type modeled protein structure was performed for each variant. Wild-type and mutated structures were analyzed by coarse-grained NMA to quantify protein stability as entropy difference value (ΔG) for each variant. Pairwise ΔG differences between all variant pairs in each structural cluster were calculated and clustered into dendrograms. Our search yielded 41 TUBB4A pathogenic variants in 126 patients, divided into 11 partially overlapping structural clusters across the TUBB4A protein. ΔG-based cluster analysis of the NMA results revealed a continuum of genotype-phenotype correlation across each structural cluster, as well as in transition areas of partially overlapping structural clusters. Benign/likely benign variants were integrated into the genotype-phenotype continuum as expected and were clearly separated from pathogenic variants. We conclude that our results support the incorporation of the NMA-based approach used in this study in the interpretation of variant pathogenicity and phenotype prediction in TUBB4A-related disease. Moreover, our results suggest that NMA may be of value in variant interpretation in additional monogenic conditions.
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.