Literature DB >> 31241222

Assessing the performance of in silico methods for predicting the pathogenicity of variants in the gene CHEK2, among Hispanic females with breast cancer.

Alin Voskanian1, Panagiotis Katsonis2, Olivier Lichtarge2,3, Vikas Pejaver4,5, Predrag Radivojac6, Sean D Mooney4, Emidio Capriotti7, Yana Bromberg8,9,10, Yanran Wang8, Max Miller8, Pier Luigi Martelli11, Castrense Savojardo11, Giulia Babbi11, Rita Casadio11, Yue Cao12, Yuanfei Sun12, Yang Shen12, Aditi Garg13, Debnath Pal13, Yao Yu14, Chad D Huff14, Sean V Tavtigian15, Erin Young15, Susan L Neuhausen16, Elad Ziv17, Lipika R Pal18, Gaia Andreoletti19, Steven E Brenner19, Maricel G Kann1.   

Abstract

The availability of disease-specific genomic data is critical for developing new computational methods that predict the pathogenicity of human variants and advance the field of precision medicine. However, the lack of gold standards to properly train and benchmark such methods is one of the greatest challenges in the field. In response to this challenge, the scientific community is invited to participate in the Critical Assessment for Genome Interpretation (CAGI), where unpublished disease variants are available for classification by in silico methods. As part of the CAGI-5 challenge, we evaluated the performance of 18 submissions and three additional methods in predicting the pathogenicity of single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in checkpoint kinase 2 (CHEK2) for cases of breast cancer in Hispanic females. As part of the assessment, the efficacy of the analysis method and the setup of the challenge were also considered. The results indicated that though the challenge could benefit from additional participant data, the combined generalized linear model analysis and odds of pathogenicity analysis provided a framework to evaluate the methods submitted for SNV pathogenicity identification and for comparison to other available methods. The outcome of this challenge and the approaches used can help guide further advancements in identifying SNV-disease relationships.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CAGI; CHEK2; Hispanic women; SNV; breast cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31241222      PMCID: PMC6744287          DOI: 10.1002/humu.23849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Mutat        ISSN: 1059-7794            Impact factor:   4.700


  44 in total

1.  Functional annotations improve the predictive score of human disease-related mutations in proteins.

Authors:  Remo Calabrese; Emidio Capriotti; Piero Fariselli; Pier Luigi Martelli; Rita Casadio
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.878

2.  A probabilistic disease-gene finder for personal genomes.

Authors:  Mark Yandell; Chad Huff; Hao Hu; Marc Singleton; Barry Moore; Jinchuan Xing; Lynn B Jorde; Martin G Reese
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 9.043

3.  Missense variant pathogenicity predictors generalize well across a range of function-specific prediction challenges.

Authors:  Vikas Pejaver; Sean D Mooney; Predrag Radivojac
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 4.878

4.  Evolutionary Action Score of TP53 Identifies High-Risk Mutations Associated with Decreased Survival and Increased Distant Metastases in Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  David M Neskey; Abdullah A Osman; Thomas J Ow; Panagiotis Katsonis; Thomas McDonald; Stephanie C Hicks; Teng-Kuei Hsu; Curtis R Pickering; Alexandra Ward; Ameeta Patel; John S Yordy; Heath D Skinner; Uma Giri; Daisuke Sano; Michael D Story; Beth M Beadle; Adel K El-Naggar; Merrill S Kies; William N William; Carlos Caulin; Mitchell Frederick; Marek Kimmel; Jeffrey N Myers; Olivier Lichtarge
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 12.701

5.  Predicting the insurgence of human genetic diseases associated to single point protein mutations with support vector machines and evolutionary information.

Authors:  E Capriotti; R Calabrese; R Casadio
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2006-08-07       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  De novo inference of protein function from coarse-grained dynamics.

Authors:  Pratiti Bhadra; Debnath Pal
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2014-06-09

7.  Comprehensive statistical study of 452 BRCA1 missense substitutions with classification of eight recurrent substitutions as neutral.

Authors:  S V Tavtigian; A M Deffenbaugh; L Yin; T Judkins; T Scholl; P B Samollow; D de Silva; A Zharkikh; A Thomas
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2005-07-13       Impact factor: 6.318

8.  CHEK2 contribution to hereditary breast cancer in non-BRCA families.

Authors:  Alexis Desrichard; Yannick Bidet; Nancy Uhrhammer; Yves-Jean Bignon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2011-11-24       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Analysis of protein-coding genetic variation in 60,706 humans.

Authors:  Monkol Lek; Konrad J Karczewski; Eric V Minikel; Kaitlin E Samocha; Eric Banks; Timothy Fennell; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; James S Ware; Andrew J Hill; Beryl B Cummings; Taru Tukiainen; Daniel P Birnbaum; Jack A Kosmicki; Laramie E Duncan; Karol Estrada; Fengmei Zhao; James Zou; Emma Pierce-Hoffman; Joanne Berghout; David N Cooper; Nicole Deflaux; Mark DePristo; Ron Do; Jason Flannick; Menachem Fromer; Laura Gauthier; Jackie Goldstein; Namrata Gupta; Daniel Howrigan; Adam Kiezun; Mitja I Kurki; Ami Levy Moonshine; Pradeep Natarajan; Lorena Orozco; Gina M Peloso; Ryan Poplin; Manuel A Rivas; Valentin Ruano-Rubio; Samuel A Rose; Douglas M Ruderfer; Khalid Shakir; Peter D Stenson; Christine Stevens; Brett P Thomas; Grace Tiao; Maria T Tusie-Luna; Ben Weisburd; Hong-Hee Won; Dongmei Yu; David M Altshuler; Diego Ardissino; Michael Boehnke; John Danesh; Stacey Donnelly; Roberto Elosua; Jose C Florez; Stacey B Gabriel; Gad Getz; Stephen J Glatt; Christina M Hultman; Sekar Kathiresan; Markku Laakso; Steven McCarroll; Mark I McCarthy; Dermot McGovern; Ruth McPherson; Benjamin M Neale; Aarno Palotie; Shaun M Purcell; Danish Saleheen; Jeremiah M Scharf; Pamela Sklar; Patrick F Sullivan; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Ming T Tsuang; Hugh C Watkins; James G Wilson; Mark J Daly; Daniel G MacArthur
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-08-18       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Modeling the ACMG/AMP variant classification guidelines as a Bayesian classification framework.

Authors:  Sean V Tavtigian; Marc S Greenblatt; Steven M Harrison; Robert L Nussbaum; Snehit A Prabhu; Kenneth M Boucher; Leslie G Biesecker
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-01-04       Impact factor: 8.822

View more
  3 in total

1.  CAGI5: Objective performance assessments of predictions based on the Evolutionary Action equation.

Authors:  Panagiotis Katsonis; Olivier Lichtarge
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2019-08-07       Impact factor: 4.878

Review 2.  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

3.  Recommendations for application of the functional evidence PS3/BS3 criterion using the ACMG/AMP sequence variant interpretation framework.

Authors:  Sarah E Brnich; Ahmad N Abou Tayoun; Fergus J Couch; Garry R Cutting; Marc S Greenblatt; Christopher D Heinen; Dona M Kanavy; Xi Luo; Shannon M McNulty; Lea M Starita; Sean V Tavtigian; Matt W Wright; Steven M Harrison; Leslie G Biesecker; Jonathan S Berg
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 11.117

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.