4.7 Article

Evaluation of structural and evolutionary contributions to deleterious mutation prediction

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Volume 322, Issue 4, Pages 891-901

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)00813-6

Keywords

deleterious mutation prediction; protein mutagenesis; human disease allele; protein evolution; protein structure prediction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Methods for automated prediction of deleterious protein mutations have utilized both structural and evolutionary information but the relative contribution of these two factors remains unclear. To address this, we have used a variety of structural and evolutionary features to create simple deleterious mutation models that have been tested on both experimental mutagenesis and human allele data. We find that the most accurate predictions are obtained using a solvent-accessibility term, the C-beta density, and a score derived from homologous sequences, SIFT. A classification tree using these two features has a cross-validated prediction error of 20.5% on an experimental mutagenesis test set when the prior probability for deleterious and neutral cases is equal, whereas this prediction error is 28.8% and 22.2% using either the C-beta density or SIFT alone. The improvement imparted by structure increases when fewer homologs are available: when restricted to three homologs the prediction error improves from 26.9% using SIFT alone to 22.4% using SIFT and the C-beta density, or 24.8% using SIFT and a noisy C-beta density term approximating the inaccuracy of ab initio structures modeled by the Rosetta method. We conclude that methods for deleterious mutation prediction should include structural information when fewer than five to ten homologs are available, and that ab initio predicted structures may soon be useful in such cases when high-resolution structures are unavailable. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available