Literature DB >> 31301157

Assessing computational predictions of the phenotypic effect of cystathionine-beta-synthase variants.

Laura Kasak1,2, Constantina Bakolitsa1, Zhiqiang Hu1, Changhua Yu1, Jasper Rine3, Dago F Dimster-Denk3, Gaurav Pandey1, Greet De Baets4,5, Yana Bromberg6, Chen Cao7,8, Emidio Capriotti9, Rita Casadio10, Joost Van Durme4,11, Manuel Giollo12, Rachel Karchin13, Panagiotis Katsonis14, Emanuela Leonardi15, Olivier Lichtarge14, Pier Luigi Martelli10, David Masica13, Sean D Mooney16, Ayodeji Olatubosun17, Predrag Radivojac18,19, Frederic Rousseau4,5, Lipika R Pal7, Castrense Savojardo10, Joost Schymkowitz4,5, Janita Thusberg16, Silvio C E Tosatto12, Mauno Vihinen17, Jouni Väliaho17, Susanna Repo1, John Moult5,20, Steven E Brenner1, Iddo Friedberg21,22.   

Abstract

Accurate prediction of the impact of genomic variation on phenotype is a major goal of computational biology and an important contributor to personalized medicine. Computational predictions can lead to a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying genetic diseases, including cancer, but their adoption requires thorough and unbiased assessment. Cystathionine-beta-synthase (CBS) is an enzyme that catalyzes the first step of the transsulfuration pathway, from homocysteine to cystathionine, and in which variations are associated with human hyperhomocysteinemia and homocystinuria. We have created a computational challenge under the CAGI framework to evaluate how well different methods can predict the phenotypic effect(s) of CBS single amino acid substitutions using a blinded experimental data set. CAGI participants were asked to predict yeast growth based on the identity of the mutations. The performance of the methods was evaluated using several metrics. The CBS challenge highlighted the difficulty of predicting the phenotype of an ex vivo system in a model organism when classification models were trained on human disease data. We also discuss the variations in difficulty of prediction for known benign and deleterious variants, as well as identify methodological and experimental constraints with lessons to be learned for future challenges.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CAGI challenge; critical assessment; cystathionine-beta-synthase; machine learning; phenotype prediction; single amino acid substitution

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31301157      PMCID: PMC7325732          DOI: 10.1002/humu.23868

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


  43 in total

1.  Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks.

Authors:  S Henikoff; J G Henikoff
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  1992-11-15       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  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

3.  REVEL: An Ensemble Method for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Rare Missense Variants.

Authors:  Nilah M Ioannidis; Joseph H Rothstein; Vikas Pejaver; Sumit Middha; Shannon K McDonnell; Saurabh Baheti; Anthony Musolf; Qing Li; Emily Holzinger; Danielle Karyadi; Lisa A Cannon-Albright; Craig C Teerlink; Janet L Stanford; William B Isaacs; Jianfeng Xu; Kathleen A Cooney; Ethan M Lange; Johanna Schleutker; John D Carpten; Isaac J Powell; Olivier Cussenot; Geraldine Cancel-Tassin; Graham G Giles; Robert J MacInnis; Christiane Maier; Chih-Lin Hsieh; Fredrik Wiklund; William J Catalona; William D Foulkes; Diptasri Mandal; Rosalind A Eeles; Zsofia Kote-Jarai; Carlos D Bustamante; Daniel J Schaid; Trevor Hastie; Elaine A Ostrander; Joan E Bailey-Wilson; Predrag Radivojac; Stephen N Thibodeau; Alice S Whittemore; Weiva Sieh
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 4.  Tools for Predicting the Functional Impact of Nonsynonymous Genetic Variation.

Authors:  Haiming Tang; Paul D Thomas
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  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

6.  Yeast cystathionine beta-synthase is a pyridoxal phosphate enzyme but, unlike the human enzyme, is not a heme protein.

Authors:  K H Jhee; P McPhie; E W Miles
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2000-04-21       Impact factor: 5.157

Review 7.  Protein function in precision medicine: deep understanding with machine learning.

Authors:  Burkhard Rost; Predrag Radivojac; Yana Bromberg
Journal:  FEBS Lett       Date:  2016-08-06       Impact factor: 4.124

8.  A three-state prediction of single point mutations on protein stability changes.

Authors:  Emidio Capriotti; Piero Fariselli; Ivan Rossi; Rita Casadio
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  The evaluation of tools used to predict the impact of missense variants is hindered by two types of circularity.

Authors:  Dominik G Grimm; Chloé-Agathe Azencott; Fabian Aicheler; Udo Gieraths; Daniel G MacArthur; Kaitlin E Samocha; David N Cooper; Peter D Stenson; Mark J Daly; Jordan W Smoller; Laramie E Duncan; Karsten M Borgwardt
Journal:  Hum Mutat       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 4.878

10.  Heme interaction of the intrinsically disordered N-terminal peptide segment of human cystathionine-β-synthase.

Authors:  Amit Kumar; Amelie Wißbrock; Nishit Goradia; Peter Bellstedt; Ramadurai Ramachandran; Diana Imhof; Oliver Ohlenschläger
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 4.379

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Monogenic causes of non-obstructive azoospermia: challenges, established knowledge, limitations and perspectives.

Authors:  Laura Kasak; Maris Laan
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2020-01-18       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Variation benchmark datasets: update, criteria, quality and applications.

Authors:  Anasua Sarkar; Yang Yang; Mauno Vihinen
Journal:  Database (Oxford)       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 3.451

Review 3.  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 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.