4.6 Article

Investigation of deleterious effects of nsSNPs in the POT1 gene: a structural genomics-based approach to understand the mechanism of cancer development

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 120, 期 6, 页码 10281-10294

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.28312

关键词

computational methods; OB-fold protein; protection of telomere 1; sequence analysis; SNPs; deleterious mutations; structural genomics

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, India [09/466(0197)2K18, EMR-7]
  2. King Saud University [RGP-150]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Protection of telomere 1 (POT1) is one of the key components of shelterin complex, implicated in maintaining the telomere homeostasis, and thus stability of the eukaryotic genome. A large number of non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (nsSNPs) in the POT1 gene have been reported to cause varieties of human diseases, including cancer. In recent years, a number of mutations in POT1 has been markedly increased, and interpreting the effect of these large numbers of mutations to understand the mechanism of associated diseases seems impossible using experimental approaches. Herein, we employ varieties of computational methods such as PROVEAN, PolyPhen-2, SIFT, PoPMuSiC, SDM2, STRUM, and MAESTRO to identify the effects of 387 nsSNPs on the structure and function of POT1 protein. We have identified about 183 nsSNPs as deleterious and termed them as high-confidence nsSNPs. Distribution of these high-confidence nsSNPs demonstrates that the mutation in oligonucleotide binding domain 1 is highly deleterious (one in every three nsSNPs), and high-confidence nsSNPs show a strong correlation with residue conservation. The structure analysis provides a detailed insights into the structural changes occurred in consequence of conserved mutations which lead to the cancer progression. This study, for the first time, offers a newer prospective on the role of POT1 mutations on the structure, function, and their relation to associated diseases.

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

4.6
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