4.5 Article

In Silico Analysis of Missense Substitutions Using Sequence-Alignment Based Methods

期刊

HUMAN MUTATION
卷 29, 期 11, 页码 1327-1336

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/humu.20892

关键词

unclassified variant; missense substitution; protein multiple sequence alignments; PMSAs

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [CA 96536]
  2. Lake Champlain Cancer Research Organization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genetic testing for mutations in high-risk cancer susceptibility genes often reveals missense substitutions that are not easily classified as pathogenic or neutral. Among the methods that can help in their classification are computational analyses. Predictions of pathogenic vs. neutral, or the probability, that a variant is pathogenic, can be made based on: 1) inferences from evolutionary conservation using protein multiple sequence alignments (PMSAs) of the gene of interest for almost any missense sequence variant; and 2) for many variants, structural features of wild-type and variant proteins. These in silico methods have improved considerably in recent years. In this work, we review and/or make suggestions with respect to: 1) the rationale for using in silico methods to help predict the consequences of missense variants; 2) important aspects of creating PMSAs that are informative for classification; 3) specific features of algorithms that have been used for classification of clinically-observed variants; 4) validation studies demonstrating that computational analyses can have predictive values (PVs) of similar to 75 to 95%; 5) current limitations of data sets and algorithms that need to be addressed to improve the computational classifiers; and 6) how in silico algorithms can be a part of the integrated analysis of multiple lines of evidence to help classify variants. We conclude that carefully validated computational algorithms, in the context of other evidence, can be an important tool for classification of missense variants. Hum Mutat 29(11), 1327-1336, 2008. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据