ArticleNature communications2025
Prevalence of loss-of-function, gain-of-function and dominant-negative mechanisms across genetic disease phenotypes.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A homozygous CTLA-4 variant causes CTLA-4 deficiency with severe immune dysregulation.Journal of human immunity · 2026Article
- Article
- Protein entanglement misfolding influences whether proteins undergo proteasomal degradation or persist in near-native misfolded states.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Evolutionary causes and consequences of gene duplication.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2026Review
- Dose as a fundamental organizing principle in physiology: Implications for mechanism, disease, and precision medicine.Journal of precision medicine (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Computational Insights into SIRT1: Elucidating Mutational Impact on SIRT1-RECQL4 Structural Dynamics.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2026Article
- Cranial placode differentiation defect in individuals born without a nose.Stem cell reports · 2026Article
- Actually, what is a gain-of-function mutation?Genetics · 2026Article
- acmgscaler: an R package and Colab for standardized gene-level variant effect score calibration within the ACMG/AMP framework.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Guidelines for releasing a variant effect predictor.Genome biology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular disease mechanisms caused by mutations in protein-coding regions are diverse, but they can be broadly categorised into loss-of-function, gain-of-function and dominant-negative effects. Accurately predicting these mechanisms is important, since therapeutic strategies can exploit these mechanisms. Computational predictors tend to perform less well at the identification of pathogenic gain-of-function and dominant-negative variants. Here, we develop a protein structure-based missense loss-of-function likelihood score that can separate recessive loss of function and dominant loss of function from alternative disease mechanisms. Using missense loss-of-function scores, we estimate the prevalence of molecular mechanisms across 2,837 phenotypes in 1,979 Mendelian disease genes, finding that dominant-negative and gain-of-function mechanisms account for 48% of phenotypes in dominant genes. Applying missense loss-of-function scores to genes with multiple phenotypes reveals widespread intragenic mechanistic heterogeneity, with 43% of dominant and 49% of mixed-inheritance genes harbouring both loss-of-function and non-loss-of-function mechanisms. Furthermore, we show that combining missense loss-of-function scores with phenotype semantic similarity enables the prioritisation of dominant-negative mechanisms in mixed-inheritance genes. Our structure-based approach, accessible via a Google Colab notebook, offers a scalable tool for predicting disease mechanisms and advancing personalised medicine.
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.