4.6 Review

In silico tools for splicing defect prediction: a survey from the viewpoint of end users

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 16, Issue 7, Pages 497-503

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2013.176

Keywords

bioinformatics; end ukr; in silico prediction tool; medical genetics; splicing consensus region; splicing mutation

Funding

  1. Genomic Approaches to Common Chronic Disease (National Institute of General Medical Sciences) [P50GM065509]
  2. Building on GWAS for NHLBIdisease: the CHARGE (Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology) consortium (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute) [RC2-HL102419]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

RNA splicing is the process during which introns are excised and exons are spliced. The precise recognition of splicing signals is critical to this process, and mutations affecting splicing comprise a considerable proportion of genetic disease etiology Analysis of RNA samples from the patient is the most straightforward and reliable method to detect splicing defects. However, currently, the technical limitation prohibits its use in routine clinical practice. In silico tools that predict potential consequences of splicing mutations may be useful in daily diagnostic activities. In this review, we provide medical geneticists with some basic insights into some of the most popular in silico tools for splicing defect prediction, from the viewpoint of end users. Bio- informaticians in relevant areas who are working on huge data setS may also benefit from this review. Specifically, we focus on those tools whose primary goal is to predict the impact of mutations within the 5' and 3' splicing consensus regions: the algorithm's used by different. tools as well as their major advantages and disadvantages are briefly introduced; the formats of their input and output are.summarized; and the interpretation, evaluation, and prospection are also discussed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available