ArticleCancer medicine2023
Large-scale pathogenicity prediction analysis of cancer-associated kinase mutations reveals variability in sensitivity and specificity of computational methods.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Computational Characterization of Membrane Proteins as Anticancer Targets: Current Challenges and Opportunities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Large-scale pathogenicity prediction analysis of cancer-associated kinase mutations reveals variability in sensitivity and specificity of computational methods.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMutations in kinases are the most frequent genetic alterations in cancer; however, experimental evidence establishing their cancerous nature is available only for a small fraction of these mutants.
aimsPredicition analysis of kinome mutations is the primary aim of this study. Further objective is to compare the performance of various softwares in pathogenicity prediction of kinase mutations. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe employed a set of computational tools to predict the pathogenicity of over forty-two thousand mutations and deposited the kinase-wise data in Mendeley database (Estimated Pathogenicity of Kinase Mutants [EPKiMu]).
resultsMutations are more likely to be drivers when being present in the kinase domain (vs. non-kinase domain) and belonging to hotspot residues (vs. non-hotspot residues). We identified that, while predictive tools have low specificity in general, PolyPhen-2 had the best accuracy. Further efforts to combine all four tools by consensus, voting, or other simple methods did not significantly improve accuracy. DISCUSSION: The study provides a large dataset of kinase mutations along with their predicted pathogenicity that can be used as a training set for future studies. Furthermore, a comparative sensitivity and selectivity of commonly used computational tools is presented.
conclusionPrimary-structure-based in silico tools identified more cancerous/deleterious mutations in the kinase domains and at the hot spot residues while having higher sensitivity than specificity in detecting deleterious mutations.
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.