ArticleGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2023
Performance Comparison of Computational Methods for the Prediction of the Function and Pathogenicity of Non-coding Variants.
Article in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpreting the functional impact of genetic variants: The need for context qualifiers.American journal of human genetics · 2026Review
- Evolving computational paradigms for noncoding variant pathogenicity prediction.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Review
- Evaluating variant pathogenicity prediction tools to establish African inclusive guidelines for germline genetic testing.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Systematic assessment of structural variant annotation tools for genomic interpretation.Life science alliance · 2025Article
- DNA-binding factor footprints and enhancer RNAs identify functional non-coding genetic variants.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Regional-specific calibration enables application of computational evidence for clinical classification of 5' cis-regulatory variants in Mendelian disease.American journal of human genetics · 2024Article
- Hidden secrets of the cancer genome: unlocking the impact of non-coding mutations in gene regulatory elements.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2024Review
- VarCards2: an integrated genetic and clinical database for ACMG-AMP variant-interpretation guidelines in the human whole genome.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Towards functional maps of non-coding variants in cancer.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Review
- Identifying functional regulatory mutation blocks by integrating genome sequencing and transcriptome data.iScience · 2023Article
- Optimized high-throughput screening of non-coding variants identified from genome-wide association studies.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- The Regulatory Mendelian Mutation score for GRCh38.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Exploration of Tools for the Interpretation of Human Non-Coding Variants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Demystifying non-coding GWAS variants: an overview of computational tools and methods.Human molecular genetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-coding variants in the human genome significantly influence human traits and complex diseases via their regulation and modification effects. Hence, an increasing number of computational methods are developed to predict the effects of variants in human non-coding sequences. However, it is difficult for inexperienced users to select appropriate computational methods from dozens of available methods. To solve this issue, we assessed 12 performance metrics of 24 methods on four independent non-coding variant benchmark datasets: (1) rare germline variants from clinical relevant sequence variants (ClinVar), (2) rare somatic variants from Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer (COSMIC), (3) common regulatory variants from curated expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) data, and (4) disease-associated common variants from curated genome-wide association studies (GWAS). All 24 tested methods performed differently under various conditions, indicating varying strengths and weaknesses under different scenarios. Importantly, the performance of existing methods was acceptable for rare germline variants from ClinVar with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.4481-0.8033 and poor for rare somatic variants from COSMIC (AUROC = 0.4984-0.7131), common regulatory variants from curated eQTL data (AUROC = 0.4837-0.6472), and disease-associated common variants from curated GWAS (AUROC = 0.4766-0.5188). We also compared the prediction performance of 24 methods for non-coding de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorder, and found that the combined annotation-dependent depletion (CADD) and context-dependent tolerance score (CDTS) methods showed better performance. Summarily, we assessed the performance of 24 computational methods under diverse scenarios, providing preliminary advice for proper tool selection and guiding the development of new techniques in interpreting non-coding variants.
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.