Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
Texto Completo: | http://hdl.handle.net/10183/274351 |
Resumo: | Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is an autosomal recessive disease characterized by the deficiency of alpha-L-iduronidase (IDUA), an enzyme involved in glycosaminoglycan degradation. More than 200 disease-causing variants have been reported and characterized in the IDUA gene. It also has several variants of unknown significance (VUS) and literature conflicting interpretations of pathogenicity. This study evaluated 586 variants obtained from the literature review, five population databases, in addition to dbSNP, Human Genome Mutation Database (HGMD), and ClinVar. For the variants described in the literature, two datasets were created based on the strength of the criteria. The stricter criteria subset had 108 variants with expression study, analysis of healthy controls, and/or complete gene sequence. The less stringent criteria subset had additional 52 variants found in the literature review, HGMD or ClinVar, and dbSNP with an allele frequency higher than 0.001. The other 426 variants were considered VUS. The two strength criteria datasets were used to evaluate 33 programs plus a conservation score. BayesDel (addAF and noAF), PON-P2 (genome and protein), and ClinPred algorithms showed the best sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and kappa value for both criteria subsets. The VUS were evaluated with these five algorithms. Based on the results, 122 variants had total consensus among the five predictors, with 57 classified as predicted deleterious and 65 as predicted neutral. For variants not included in PON-P2, 88 variants were considered deleterious and 92 neutral by all other predictors. The remaining 124 did not obtain a consensus among predictors. |
id |
UFRGS-2_426d779aa8c214ab1701f138f346dd79 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/274351 |
network_acronym_str |
UFRGS-2 |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Borges, PâmellaPasqualim, GabrielaMatte, Ursula da Silveira2024-03-28T06:25:20Z20212296-889Xhttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/274351001162099Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is an autosomal recessive disease characterized by the deficiency of alpha-L-iduronidase (IDUA), an enzyme involved in glycosaminoglycan degradation. More than 200 disease-causing variants have been reported and characterized in the IDUA gene. It also has several variants of unknown significance (VUS) and literature conflicting interpretations of pathogenicity. This study evaluated 586 variants obtained from the literature review, five population databases, in addition to dbSNP, Human Genome Mutation Database (HGMD), and ClinVar. For the variants described in the literature, two datasets were created based on the strength of the criteria. The stricter criteria subset had 108 variants with expression study, analysis of healthy controls, and/or complete gene sequence. The less stringent criteria subset had additional 52 variants found in the literature review, HGMD or ClinVar, and dbSNP with an allele frequency higher than 0.001. The other 426 variants were considered VUS. The two strength criteria datasets were used to evaluate 33 programs plus a conservation score. BayesDel (addAF and noAF), PON-P2 (genome and protein), and ClinPred algorithms showed the best sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and kappa value for both criteria subsets. The VUS were evaluated with these five algorithms. Based on the results, 122 variants had total consensus among the five predictors, with 57 classified as predicted deleterious and 65 as predicted neutral. For variants not included in PON-P2, 88 variants were considered deleterious and 92 neutral by all other predictors. The remaining 124 did not obtain a consensus among predictors.application/pdfengFrontiers in molecular biosciences. Lausanne. Vol. 8 (2021), e752797, 10 p.Previsões in silicoDiagnostico molecularMucopolissacaridosesVUS classificationsMissense variantsWhich is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variantsEstrangeiroinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGSinstname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)instacron:UFRGSTEXT001162099.pdf.txt001162099.pdf.txtExtracted Texttext/plain46124http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/274351/2/001162099.pdf.txt607906aa10421416b2a3a6c2b4901334MD52ORIGINAL001162099.pdfTexto completo (inglês)application/pdf2740682http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/274351/1/001162099.pdf86705a07ae3584273d8ad037d5bcce26MD5110183/2743512024-03-29 06:17:10.641917oai:www.lume.ufrgs.br:10183/274351Repositório de PublicaçõesPUBhttps://lume.ufrgs.br/oai/requestopendoar:2024-03-29T09:17:10Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS)false |
dc.title.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
title |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
spellingShingle |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants Borges, Pâmella Previsões in silico Diagnostico molecular Mucopolissacaridoses VUS classifications Missense variants |
title_short |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
title_full |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
title_fullStr |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
title_full_unstemmed |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
title_sort |
Which is the best in silico program for the Missense Variations in IDUA gene? A comparison of 33 programs plus a conservation score and evaluation of 586 missense variants |
author |
Borges, Pâmella |
author_facet |
Borges, Pâmella Pasqualim, Gabriela Matte, Ursula da Silveira |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Pasqualim, Gabriela Matte, Ursula da Silveira |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Borges, Pâmella Pasqualim, Gabriela Matte, Ursula da Silveira |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Previsões in silico Diagnostico molecular Mucopolissacaridoses |
topic |
Previsões in silico Diagnostico molecular Mucopolissacaridoses VUS classifications Missense variants |
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv |
VUS classifications Missense variants |
description |
Mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS I) is an autosomal recessive disease characterized by the deficiency of alpha-L-iduronidase (IDUA), an enzyme involved in glycosaminoglycan degradation. More than 200 disease-causing variants have been reported and characterized in the IDUA gene. It also has several variants of unknown significance (VUS) and literature conflicting interpretations of pathogenicity. This study evaluated 586 variants obtained from the literature review, five population databases, in addition to dbSNP, Human Genome Mutation Database (HGMD), and ClinVar. For the variants described in the literature, two datasets were created based on the strength of the criteria. The stricter criteria subset had 108 variants with expression study, analysis of healthy controls, and/or complete gene sequence. The less stringent criteria subset had additional 52 variants found in the literature review, HGMD or ClinVar, and dbSNP with an allele frequency higher than 0.001. The other 426 variants were considered VUS. The two strength criteria datasets were used to evaluate 33 programs plus a conservation score. BayesDel (addAF and noAF), PON-P2 (genome and protein), and ClinPred algorithms showed the best sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and kappa value for both criteria subsets. The VUS were evaluated with these five algorithms. Based on the results, 122 variants had total consensus among the five predictors, with 57 classified as predicted deleterious and 65 as predicted neutral. For variants not included in PON-P2, 88 variants were considered deleterious and 92 neutral by all other predictors. The remaining 124 did not obtain a consensus among predictors. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2021 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2024-03-28T06:25:20Z |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
Estrangeiro info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/274351 |
dc.identifier.issn.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
2296-889X |
dc.identifier.nrb.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
001162099 |
identifier_str_mv |
2296-889X 001162099 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10183/274351 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.pt_BR.fl_str_mv |
Frontiers in molecular biosciences. Lausanne. Vol. 8 (2021), e752797, 10 p. |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRGS instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) instacron:UFRGS |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
instacron_str |
UFRGS |
institution |
UFRGS |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/274351/2/001162099.pdf.txt http://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/10183/274351/1/001162099.pdf |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
607906aa10421416b2a3a6c2b4901334 86705a07ae3584273d8ad037d5bcce26 |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1815447857774198784 |