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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Borges, Pâmella
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Pasqualim, Gabriela, Matte, Ursula da Silveira
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_ 1801225115328839680