Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40225155›Full record

ArticleHuman mutation2023

REVEL Is Better at Predicting Pathogenicity of Loss-of-Function than Gain-of-Function Variants.

Jasmin J Hopkins, Matthew N Wakeling, Matthew B Johnson, Sarah E Flanagan, Thomas W Laver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human mutation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Fanconi Anemia as a Window into Premalignant Field Cancerization of the Oral Mucosa.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. MAVISp: A modular structure-based framework for protein variant effects.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 17α-hydroxylase deficiency with a novelTranslational pediatrics · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Jasmin J HopkinsDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5094-9148
Matthew N WakelingDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6542-9241
Matthew B JohnsonDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6519-6687
Sarah E FlanaganDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8670-6340
Thomas W LaverDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6399-0089

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In silico predictive tools can help determine the pathogenicity of variants. The 2015 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines recommended that scores from these tools can be used as supporting evidence of pathogenicity. A subsequent publication by the ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group suggested that high scores from some tools were sufficiently predictive to be used as moderate or strong evidence of pathogenicity. REVEL is a widely used metapredictor that uses the scores of 13 individual in silico tools to calculate the pathogenicity of missense variants. Its ability to predict missense pathogenicity has been assessed extensively; however, no study has previously tested whether its performance is affected by whether the missense variant acts via a loss-of-function (LoF) or gain-of-function (GoF) mechanism. We used a highly curated dataset of 66 confirmed LoF and 65 confirmed GoF variants to evaluate whether this affected the performance of REVEL. 98% of LoF and 100% of GoF variants met the author-recommended REVEL threshold of 0.5 for pathogenicity, while 89% of LoF and 88% of GoF variants exceeded the 0.75 threshold. However, while 55% of LoF variants met the threshold recommended for a REVEL score to count as strong evidence of pathogenicity from the ACMG guidelines (0.932), only 35% of GoF variants met this threshold (

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGain of Function MutationLoss of Function MutationSoftwareComputer SimulationGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseHumansMutation, Missense

Identifiers

PMID40225155
PMCPMC11918948

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.