Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35700770›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular biology2022

Can machines learn the mutation signatures of SARS-CoV-2 and enable viral-genotype guided predictive prognosis?

Sunil Nagpal, Nishal Kumar Pinna, Namrata Pant, Rohan Singh, Divyanshu Srivastava, Sharmila S Mande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Sunil NagpalTata Consultancy Services Ltd, Pune 411013, India; CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (CSIR-IGIB), New Delhi 110025, India; Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/NagpalSun.
Nishal Kumar PinnaTata Consultancy Services Ltd, Pune 411013, India. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/nishal_pinna.
Namrata PantTata Consultancy Services Ltd, Pune 411013, India.
Rohan SinghTata Consultancy Services Ltd, Pune 411013, India.
Divyanshu SrivastavaTata Consultancy Services Ltd, Pune 411013, India. Electronic address: https://twitter.com/divy2926.
Sharmila S MandeTata Consultancy Services Ltd, Pune 411013, India. Electronic address: sharmila.mande@tcs.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationContinuous emergence of new variants through appearance/accumulation/disappearance of mutations is a hallmark of many viral diseases. SARS-CoV-2 variants have particularly exerted tremendous pressure on global healthcare system owing to their life threatening and debilitating implications. The sheer plurality of variants and huge scale of genomic data have added to the challenges of tracing the mutations/variants and their relationship to infection severity (if any).

resultsWe explored the suitability of virus-genotype guided machine-learning in infection prognosis and identification of features/mutations-of-interest. Total 199,519 outcome-traced genomes, representing 45,625 nucleotide-mutations, were employed. Among these, post data-cleaning, Low and High severity genomes were classified using an integrated model (employing virus genotype, epitopic-influence and patient-age) with consistently high ROC-AUC (Asia:0.97 ± 0.01, Europe:0.94 ± 0.01, N.America:0.92 ± 0.02, Africa:0.94 ± 0.07, S.America:0.93 ± 03). Although virus-genotype alone could enable high predictivity (0.97 ± 0.01, 0.89 ± 0.02, 0.86 ± 0.04, 0.95 ± 0.06, 0.9 ± 0.04), the performance was not found to be consistent and the models for a few geographies displayed significant improvement in predictivity when the influence of age and/or epitope was incorporated with virus-genotype (Wilcoxon p_BH < 0.05). Neither age or epitopic-influence or clade information could out-perform the integrated features. A sparse model (6 features), developed using patient-age and epitopic-influence of the mutations, performed reasonably well (>0.87 ± 0.03, 0.91 ± 0.01, 0.87 ± 0.03, 0.84 ± 0.08, 0.89 ± 0.05). High-performance models were employed for inferring the important mutations-of-interest using Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). The changes in HLA interactions of the mutated epitopes of reference SARS-CoV-2 were then subsequently probed. Notably, we also describe the significance of a 'temporal-modeling approach' to benchmark the models linked with continuously evolving pathogens. We conclude that while machine learning can play a vital role in identifying relevant mutations and factors driving the severity, caution should be exercised in using the genotypic signatures for predictive prognosis.

Indexed as

COVID-19Machine LearningSARS-CoV-2Severity of Illness IndexGenome, ViralGenotypeHumansMutationMachine learningMutation identificationPredictive prognosisSARS-CoV-2Temporal benchmarking

Identifiers

PMID35700770
PMCPMC9188262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.