ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2025
Integration of protein stability and AlphaMissense scores improves bioinformatic impact prediction for p53 missense and in-frame amino acid deletion variants.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Homology-Based Variant-Effect Predictors Break Down on Cytochrome P450 Pharmacogenes.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- ROWVA: A Structure-Based Metric for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Protein Variants Using Alphafold2.Cancer science · 2026Article
- A comprehensive framework for the interpretation of TTN missense variants.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- The Performance ofHuman mutation · 2026Article
- Structural biology in variant interpretation: Perspectives and practices from two studies.American journal of human genetics · 2025Review
- A DNA2 mutation in the ATP-binding motif identified in a diagnostically unresolved individual.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
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
Abstract
The clinical classification of germline missense variants and single-amino-acid deletions is challenging. The BayesDel and Align-GVGD bioinformatic prediction tools currently used for ClinGen TP53 variant curation expert panel (VCEP) classification do not directly capture changes in protein folding stability, measured using computed destabilization energies (ΔΔG scores). The AlphaMissense tool recently developed by Google DeepMind to predict pathogenicity for all human proteome missense variants is trained in part using AlphaFold2 architecture. Our study investigated whether protein folding stability and/or AlphaMissense scores could improve impact prediction for p53 missense and single-amino-acid deletion variants. ΔΔG scores were calculated for missense variants using FoldX and for single-amino-acid deletions using an AlphaFold2/RosettaRelax protocol. Residue surface exposure was categorized using relative solvent accessibility (RSA) measures. The predictive values of ΔΔG scores, AlphaMissense, BayesDel, and Align-GVGD were examined using Boruta and binary logistic regression based on functionally defined reference sets. The likelihood ratio (LR) toward pathogenicity was estimated and used to refine optimal categories for predicting variant pathogenicity for different RSA values. We showed that current VCEP predictive approaches for missense variants were improved by integrating ΔΔG scores ≥2.5 kcal/mol for partially buried and buried residues, but better performance was achieved using AlphaMissense with ΔΔG and RSA. For deletion variants, ΔΔG scores ≥4.8 Rosetta energy unit (REU) in buried residues outperformed currently used predictive approaches. Future TP53 VCEP specifications for p53 missense impact prediction may consider AlphaMissense, ΔΔG score, and RSA combined for substitution variants and ΔΔG score alone for deletion 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.