Literature DB >> 28440912

Performance of in silico tools for the evaluation of p16INK4a (CDKN2A) variants in CAGI.

Marco Carraro1, Giovanni Minervini1, Manuel Giollo1,2, Yana Bromberg3,4,5, Emidio Capriotti6, Rita Casadio7, Roland Dunbrack8, Lisa Elefanti9, Pietro Fariselli10, Carlo Ferrari2, Julian Gough11, Panagiotis Katsonis12, Emanuela Leonardi13, Olivier Lichtarge12,14,15,16, Chiara Menin9, Pier Luigi Martelli6, Abhishek Niroula17, Lipika R Pal18, Susanna Repo19, Maria Chiara Scaini9, Mauno Vihinen17, Qiong Wei7, Qifang Xu7, Yuedong Yang20, Yizhou Yin18,21, Jan Zaucha11, Huiying Zhao22, Yaoqi Zhou20, Steven E Brenner23, John Moult18,24, Silvio C E Tosatto1,25.   

Abstract

Correct phenotypic interpretation of variants of unknown significance for cancer-associated genes is a diagnostic challenge as genetic screenings gain in popularity in the next-generation sequencing era. The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) experiment aims to test and define the state of the art of genotype-phenotype interpretation. Here, we present the assessment of the CAGI p16INK4a challenge. Participants were asked to predict the effect on cellular proliferation of 10 variants for the p16INK4a tumor suppressor, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor encoded by the CDKN2A gene. Twenty-two pathogenicity predictors were assessed with a variety of accuracy measures for reliability in a medical context. Different assessment measures were combined in an overall ranking to provide more robust results. The R scripts used for assessment are publicly available from a GitHub repository for future use in similar assessment exercises. Despite a limited test-set size, our findings show a variety of results, with some methods performing significantly better. Methods combining different strategies frequently outperform simpler approaches. The best predictor, Yang&Zhou lab, uses a machine learning method combining an empirical energy function measuring protein stability with an evolutionary conservation term. The p16INK4a challenge highlights how subtle structural effects can neutralize otherwise deleterious variants.
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CAGI experiment; bioinformatics tools; cancer; pathogenicity predictors; variant interpretation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28440912      PMCID: PMC5561474          DOI: 10.1002/humu.23235

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mutat        ISSN: 1059-7794            Impact factor:   4.878


  26 in total

1.  Analysis of P53 mutations and their expression in 56 colorectal cancer cell lines.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Walter F Bodmer
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  When a "disease-causing mutation" is not a pathogenic variant.

Authors:  Jian Wang; Yiping Shen
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2013-12-20       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 3.  Variation Interpretation Predictors: Principles, Types, Performance, and Choice.

Authors:  Abhishek Niroula; Mauno Vihinen
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2016-04-15       Impact factor: 4.878

Review 4.  The retinoblastoma protein and cell cycle control.

Authors:  R A Weinberg
Journal:  Cell       Date:  1995-05-05       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 5.  Genetics of familial melanoma: 20 years after CDKN2A.

Authors:  Lauren G Aoude; Karin A W Wadt; Antonia L Pritchard; Nicholas K Hayward
Journal:  Pigment Cell Melanoma Res       Date:  2015-01-05       Impact factor: 4.693

6.  Identification and in silico analysis of novel von Hippel-Lindau (VHL) gene variants from a large population.

Authors:  Emanuela Leonardi; Maddalena Martella; Silvio C E Tosatto; Alessandra Murgia
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  2011-04-04       Impact factor: 1.670

7.  Classifying variants of CDKN2A using computational and laboratory studies.

Authors:  Peter J Miller; Sekhar Duraisamy; Joan A Newell; Philip A Chan; Mark M Tie; Amy E Rogers; Claire K Ankuda; Genevieve M von Walstrom; Jeffrey P Bond; Marc S Greenblatt
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 4.878

8.  Stability and folding of the tumour suppressor protein p16.

Authors:  K S Tang; B J Guralnick; W K Wang; A R Fersht; L S Itzhaki
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1999-01-29       Impact factor: 5.469

9.  COSMIC: exploring the world's knowledge of somatic mutations in human cancer.

Authors:  Simon A Forbes; David Beare; Prasad Gunasekaran; Kenric Leung; Nidhi Bindal; Harry Boutselakis; Minjie Ding; Sally Bamford; Charlotte Cole; Sari Ward; Chai Yin Kok; Mingming Jia; Tisham De; Jon W Teague; Michael R Stratton; Ultan McDermott; Peter J Campbell
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  VHLdb: A database of von Hippel-Lindau protein interactors and mutations.

Authors:  Francesco Tabaro; Giovanni Minervini; Faiza Sundus; Federica Quaglia; Emanuela Leonardi; Damiano Piovesan; Silvio C E Tosatto
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  6 in total

1.  Reports from CAGI: The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation.

Authors:  Roger A Hoskins; Susanna Repo; Daniel Barsky; Gaia Andreoletti; John Moult; Steven E Brenner
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 4.878

2.  Key Parameters of Tumor Epitope Immunogenicity Revealed Through a Consortium Approach Improve Neoantigen Prediction.

Authors:  Daniel K Wells; Marit M van Buuren; Kristen K Dang; Vanessa M Hubbard-Lucey; Kathleen C F Sheehan; Katie M Campbell; Andrew Lamb; Jeffrey P Ward; John Sidney; Ana B Blazquez; Andrew J Rech; Jesse M Zaretsky; Begonya Comin-Anduix; Alphonsus H C Ng; William Chour; Thomas V Yu; Hira Rizvi; Jia M Chen; Patrice Manning; Gabriela M Steiner; Xengie C Doan; Taha Merghoub; Justin Guinney; Adam Kolom; Cheryl Selinsky; Antoni Ribas; Matthew D Hellmann; Nir Hacohen; Alessandro Sette; James R Heath; Nina Bhardwaj; Fred Ramsdell; Robert D Schreiber; Ton N Schumacher; Pia Kvistborg; Nadine A Defranoux
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2020-10-09       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  Performance of computational methods for the evaluation of pericentriolar material 1 missense variants in CAGI-5.

Authors:  Alexander Miguel Monzon; Marco Carraro; Luigi Chiricosta; Francesco Reggiani; James Han; Kivilcim Ozturk; Yanran Wang; Maximilian Miller; Yana Bromberg; Emidio Capriotti; Castrense Savojardo; Giulia Babbi; Pier L Martelli; Rita Casadio; Panagiotis Katsonis; Olivier Lichtarge; Hannah Carter; Maria Kousi; Nicholas Katsanis; Gaia Andreoletti; John Moult; Steven E Brenner; Carlo Ferrari; Emanuela Leonardi; Silvio C E Tosatto
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2019-08-17       Impact factor: 4.700

4.  Using deep mutational scanning to benchmark variant effect predictors and identify disease mutations.

Authors:  Benjamin J Livesey; Joseph A Marsh
Journal:  Mol Syst Biol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 11.429

Review 5.  Genome interpretation using in silico predictors of variant impact.

Authors:  Panagiotis Katsonis; Kevin Wilhelm; Amanda Williams; Olivier Lichtarge
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2022-04-30       Impact factor: 5.881

6.  In silico prediction of blood cholesterol levels from genotype data.

Authors:  Francesco Reggiani; Marco Carraro; Anna Belligoli; Marta Sanna; Chiara Dal Prà; Francesca Favaretto; Carlo Ferrari; Roberto Vettor; Silvio C E Tosatto
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.