4.8 Article

The human gene damage index as a gene-level approach to prioritizing exome variants

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1518646112

Keywords

mutational damage; gene-level; gene prioritization; variant prioritization; next generation sequencing

Funding

  1. March of Dimes Grant [1-FY12-440]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [5R37AI095983, 5R01AI088364, 5U01AI088685, P01AI061093]
  3. Rockefeller University
  4. INSERM
  5. University Paris Descartes
  6. St. Giles Foundation
  7. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award program [UL1 TR000043]
  8. New York Stem Cell Foundation
  9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  10. European Molecular Biology Organization
  11. German Research Foundation
  12. Stony-Wold Herbert Fund
  13. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP)/ERC Grant [281297]
  14. Cardiff University
  15. Qiagen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The protein-coding exome of a patient with a monogenic disease contains about 20,000 variants, only one or two of which are disease causing. We found that 58% of rare variants in the protein-coding exome of the general population are located in only 2% of the genes. Prompted by this observation, we aimed to develop a gene-level approach for predicting whether a given human protein-coding gene is likely to harbor disease-causing mutations. To this end, we derived the gene damage index (GDI): a genome-wide, gene-level metric of the mutational damage that has accumulated in the general population. We found that the GDI was correlated with selective evolutionary pressure, protein complexity, coding sequence length, and the number of paralogs. We compared GDI with the leading gene-level approaches, genic intolerance, and de novo excess, and demonstrated that GDI performed best for the detection of false positives (i.e., removing exome variants in genes irrelevant to disease), whereas genic intolerance and de novo excess performed better for the detection of true positives (i.e., assessing de novo mutations in genes likely to be disease causing).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available