TY - JOUR
T1 - Performance of in silico tools for the evaluation of p16INK4a (CDKN2A) variants in CAGI
AU - Carraro, Marco
AU - Minervini, Giovanni
AU - Giollo, Manuel
AU - Bromberg, Yana
AU - Capriotti, Emidio
AU - Casadio, Rita
AU - Dunbrack, Roland
AU - Elefanti, Lisa
AU - Fariselli, Pietro
AU - Ferrari, Carlo
AU - Gough, Julian
AU - Katsonis, Panagiotis
AU - Leonardi, Emanuela
AU - Lichtarge, Olivier
AU - Menin, Chiara
AU - Martelli, Pier Luigi
AU - Niroula, Abhishek
AU - Pal, Lipika R.
AU - Repo, Susanna
AU - Scaini, Maria Chiara
AU - Vihinen, Mauno
AU - Wei, Qiong
AU - Xu, Qifang
AU - Yang, Yuedong
AU - Yin, Yizhou
AU - Zaucha, Jan
AU - Zhao, Huiying
AU - Zhou, Yaoqi
AU - Brenner, Steven E.
AU - Moult, John
AU - Tosatto, Silvio C.E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
PY - 2017/9
Y1 - 2017/9
N2 - Correct phenotypic interpretation of variants of unknown significance for cancer-associated genes is a diagnostic challenge as genetic screenings gain in popularity in the next-generation sequencing era. The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) experiment aims to test and define the state of the art of genotype–phenotype interpretation. Here, we present the assessment of the CAGI p16INK4a challenge. Participants were asked to predict the effect on cellular proliferation of 10 variants for the p16INK4a tumor suppressor, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor encoded by the CDKN2A gene. Twenty-two pathogenicity predictors were assessed with a variety of accuracy measures for reliability in a medical context. Different assessment measures were combined in an overall ranking to provide more robust results. The R scripts used for assessment are publicly available from a GitHub repository for future use in similar assessment exercises. Despite a limited test-set size, our findings show a variety of results, with some methods performing significantly better. Methods combining different strategies frequently outperform simpler approaches. The best predictor, Yang&Zhou lab, uses a machine learning method combining an empirical energy function measuring protein stability with an evolutionary conservation term. The p16INK4a challenge highlights how subtle structural effects can neutralize otherwise deleterious variants.
AB - Correct phenotypic interpretation of variants of unknown significance for cancer-associated genes is a diagnostic challenge as genetic screenings gain in popularity in the next-generation sequencing era. The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) experiment aims to test and define the state of the art of genotype–phenotype interpretation. Here, we present the assessment of the CAGI p16INK4a challenge. Participants were asked to predict the effect on cellular proliferation of 10 variants for the p16INK4a tumor suppressor, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor encoded by the CDKN2A gene. Twenty-two pathogenicity predictors were assessed with a variety of accuracy measures for reliability in a medical context. Different assessment measures were combined in an overall ranking to provide more robust results. The R scripts used for assessment are publicly available from a GitHub repository for future use in similar assessment exercises. Despite a limited test-set size, our findings show a variety of results, with some methods performing significantly better. Methods combining different strategies frequently outperform simpler approaches. The best predictor, Yang&Zhou lab, uses a machine learning method combining an empirical energy function measuring protein stability with an evolutionary conservation term. The p16INK4a challenge highlights how subtle structural effects can neutralize otherwise deleterious variants.
KW - CAGI experiment
KW - bioinformatics tools
KW - cancer
KW - pathogenicity predictors
KW - variant interpretation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019402721&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=purepublist2023&SrcAuth=WosAPI&KeyUT=WOS:000407861100002&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=WOS
U2 - 10.1002/humu.23235
DO - 10.1002/humu.23235
M3 - Article
C2 - 28440912
SN - 1059-7794
VL - 38
SP - 1042
EP - 1050
JO - Human Mutation
JF - Human Mutation
IS - 9
ER -