Dataset Information

In silico analysis of missense substitutions using sequence-alignment based methods.

ABSTRACT: 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 approximately 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.

SUBMITTER: Tavtigian SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3431198 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

In silico analysis of missense substitutions using sequence-alignment based methods.

Tavtigian Sean V SV Greenblatt Marc S MS Lesueur Fabienne F Byrnes Graham B GB

Human mutation 20081101 11

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 missen ...[more]

PMID: 18951440

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccurate sequence alignments are essential for homology searches and for building three-dimensional structural models of proteins. Since structure is better conserved than sequence, structure alignments have been used to guide sequence alignments and are commonly used as the gold standard for sequence alignment evaluation. Nonetheless, as far as we know, there is no report of a systematic evaluation of pairwise structure alignment programs in terms of the sequence alignment accuracy.ResultsIn this study, we evaluate CE, DaliLite, FAST, LOCK2, MATRAS, SHEBA and VAST in terms of the accuracy of the sequence alignments they produce, using sequence alignments from NCBI's human-curated Conserved Domain Database (CDD) as the standard of truth. We find that 4 to 9% of the residues on average are either not aligned or aligned with more than 8 residues of shift error and that an additional 6 to 14% of residues on average are misaligned by 1-8 residues, depending on the program and the data set used. The fraction of correctly aligned residues generally decreases as the sequence similarity decreases or as the RMSD between the C alpha positions of the two structures increases. It varies significantly across CDD superfamilies whether shift error is allowed or not. Also, alignments with different shift errors occur between proteins within the same CDD superfamily, leading to inconsistent alignments between superfamily members. In general, residue pairs that are more than 3.0 A apart in the reference alignment are heavily (>or= 25% on average) misaligned in the test alignments. In addition, each method shows a different pattern of relative weaknesses for different SCOP classes. CE gives relatively poor results for beta-sheet-containing structures (all-beta, alpha/beta, and alpha+beta classes), DaliLite for "others" class where all but the major four classes are combined, and LOCK2 and VAST for all-beta and "others" classes.ConclusionWhen the sequence similarity is low, structure-based methods produce better sequence alignments than by using sequence similarities alone. However, current structure-based methods still mis-align 11-19% of the conserved core residues when compared to the human-curated CDD alignments. The alignment quality of each program depends on the protein structural type and similarity, with DaliLite showing the most agreement with CDD on average.

Dataset Information

In silico analysis of missense substitutions using sequence-alignment based methods.

Publications

In silico analysis of missense substitutions using sequence-alignment based methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets