15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Performance of mutation pathogenicity prediction methods on missense variants.

      1 , ,
      Human mutation
      Wiley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are the most common form of genetic variation in humans. The number of SNPs identified in the human genome is growing rapidly, but attaining experimental knowledge about the possible disease association of variants is laborious and time-consuming. Several computational methods have been developed for the classification of SNPs according to their predicted pathogenicity. In this study, we have evaluated the performance of nine widely used pathogenicity prediction methods available on the Internet. The evaluated methods were MutPred, nsSNPAnalyzer, Panther, PhD-SNP, PolyPhen, PolyPhen2, SIFT, SNAP, and SNPs&GO. The methods were tested with a set of over 40,000 pathogenic and neutral variants. We also assessed whether the type of original or substituting amino acid residue, the structural class of the protein, or the structural environment of the amino acid substitution, had an effect on the prediction performance. The performances of the programs ranged from poor (MCC 0.19) to reasonably good (MCC 0.65), and the results from the programs correlated poorly. The overall best performing methods in this study were SNPs&GO and MutPred, with accuracies reaching 0.82 and 0.81, respectively.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Hum Mutat
          Human mutation
          Wiley
          1098-1004
          1059-7794
          Apr 2011
          : 32
          : 4
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Institute of Biomedical Technology, F1-33014 University of Tampere, Finland.
          Article
          10.1002/humu.21445
          21412949
          bc1b03b1-7c9c-4d62-a98a-25c1c798672b
          © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article