4.5 Article

CAGI experiments: Modeling sequence variant impact on gene splicing using predictions from computational tools

Journal

HUMAN MUTATION
Volume 40, Issue 9, Pages 1252-1260

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.23782

Keywords

computational predictions; mathematical modeling; SPANR; SplicePort; splicing

Funding

  1. NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE [ZIAHG200323] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. Intramural NIH HHS [ZIA HG200323-14] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NHGRI NIH HHS [U41 HG007346, R13 HG006650] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Improving predictions of phenotypic consequences for genomic variants is part of ongoing efforts in the scientific community to gain meaningful insights into genomic function. Within the framework of the critical assessment of genome interpretation experiments, we participated in the Vex-seq challenge, which required predicting the change in the percent spliced in measure (Delta psi) for 58 exons caused by more than 1,000 genomic variants. Experimentally determined through the Vex-seq assay, the psi quantifies the fraction of reads that include an exon of interest. Predicting the change in psi associated with specific genomic variants implies determining the sequence changes relevant for splicing regulators, such as splicing enhancers and silencers. Here we took advantage of two computational tools, SplicePort and SPANR, that incorporate relevant sequence features in their models of splice sites and exon-inclusion level, respectively. Specifically, we used the SplicePort and SPANR outputs to build mathematical models of the experimental data obtained for the variants in the training set, which we then used to predict the Delta psi associated with the mutations in the test set. We show that the sequence changes captured by these computational tools provide a reasonable foundation for modeling the impact on splicing associated with genomic variants.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available