Cargando…

Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?

In silico tools for splicing defect prediction have a key role to assess the impact of variants of uncertain significance. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a set of commonly used splicing in silico tools comparing the predictions against RNA in vitro results. This was done for natural spli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moles-Fernández, Alejandro, Duran-Lozano, Laura, Montalban, Gemma, Bonache, Sandra, López-Perolio, Irene, Menéndez, Mireia, Santamariña, Marta, Behar, Raquel, Blanco, Ana, Carrasco, Estela, López-Fernández, Adrià, Stjepanovic, Neda, Balmaña, Judith, Capellá, Gabriel, Pineda, Marta, Vega, Ana, Lázaro, Conxi, de la Hoya, Miguel, Diez, Orland, Gutiérrez-Enríquez, Sara
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30233647
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00366
_version_ 1783354638075953152
author Moles-Fernández, Alejandro
Duran-Lozano, Laura
Montalban, Gemma
Bonache, Sandra
López-Perolio, Irene
Menéndez, Mireia
Santamariña, Marta
Behar, Raquel
Blanco, Ana
Carrasco, Estela
López-Fernández, Adrià
Stjepanovic, Neda
Balmaña, Judith
Capellá, Gabriel
Pineda, Marta
Vega, Ana
Lázaro, Conxi
de la Hoya, Miguel
Diez, Orland
Gutiérrez-Enríquez, Sara
author_facet Moles-Fernández, Alejandro
Duran-Lozano, Laura
Montalban, Gemma
Bonache, Sandra
López-Perolio, Irene
Menéndez, Mireia
Santamariña, Marta
Behar, Raquel
Blanco, Ana
Carrasco, Estela
López-Fernández, Adrià
Stjepanovic, Neda
Balmaña, Judith
Capellá, Gabriel
Pineda, Marta
Vega, Ana
Lázaro, Conxi
de la Hoya, Miguel
Diez, Orland
Gutiérrez-Enríquez, Sara
author_sort Moles-Fernández, Alejandro
collection PubMed
description In silico tools for splicing defect prediction have a key role to assess the impact of variants of uncertain significance. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a set of commonly used splicing in silico tools comparing the predictions against RNA in vitro results. This was done for natural splice sites of clinically relevant genes in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome. A study divided into two stages was used to evaluate SSF-like, MaxEntScan, NNSplice, HSF, SPANR, and dbscSNV tools. A discovery dataset of 99 variants with unequivocal results of RNA in vitro studies, located in the 10 exonic and 20 intronic nucleotides adjacent to exon–intron boundaries of BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, ATM, BRIP1, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53, was collected from four Spanish cancer genetic laboratories. The best stand-alone predictors or combinations were validated with a set of 346 variants in the same genes with clear splicing outcomes reported in the literature. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV) and Mathews Coefficient Correlation (MCC) scores were used to measure the performance. The discovery stage showed that HSF and SSF-like were the most accurate for variants at the donor and acceptor region, respectively. The further combination analysis revealed that HSF, HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES achieved a high performance for predicting the disruption of donor sites, and SSF-like or a sequential combination of MES and SSF-like for predicting disruption of acceptor sites. The performance confirmation of these last results with the validation dataset, indicated that the highest sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV (99.44%, 99.44%, and 96.88, respectively) were attained with HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES for donor sites and SSF-like (92.63%, 92.65%, and 84.44, respectively) for acceptor sites. We provide recommendations for combining algorithms to conduct in silico splicing analysis that achieved a high performance. The high NPV obtained allows to select the variants in which the study by in vitro RNA analysis is mandatory against those with a negligible probability of being spliceogenic. Our study also shows that the performance of each specific predictor varies depending on whether the natural splicing sites are donors or acceptors.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6134256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61342562018-09-19 Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations? Moles-Fernández, Alejandro Duran-Lozano, Laura Montalban, Gemma Bonache, Sandra López-Perolio, Irene Menéndez, Mireia Santamariña, Marta Behar, Raquel Blanco, Ana Carrasco, Estela López-Fernández, Adrià Stjepanovic, Neda Balmaña, Judith Capellá, Gabriel Pineda, Marta Vega, Ana Lázaro, Conxi de la Hoya, Miguel Diez, Orland Gutiérrez-Enríquez, Sara Front Genet Genetics In silico tools for splicing defect prediction have a key role to assess the impact of variants of uncertain significance. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a set of commonly used splicing in silico tools comparing the predictions against RNA in vitro results. This was done for natural splice sites of clinically relevant genes in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome. A study divided into two stages was used to evaluate SSF-like, MaxEntScan, NNSplice, HSF, SPANR, and dbscSNV tools. A discovery dataset of 99 variants with unequivocal results of RNA in vitro studies, located in the 10 exonic and 20 intronic nucleotides adjacent to exon–intron boundaries of BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, ATM, BRIP1, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53, was collected from four Spanish cancer genetic laboratories. The best stand-alone predictors or combinations were validated with a set of 346 variants in the same genes with clear splicing outcomes reported in the literature. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV) and Mathews Coefficient Correlation (MCC) scores were used to measure the performance. The discovery stage showed that HSF and SSF-like were the most accurate for variants at the donor and acceptor region, respectively. The further combination analysis revealed that HSF, HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES achieved a high performance for predicting the disruption of donor sites, and SSF-like or a sequential combination of MES and SSF-like for predicting disruption of acceptor sites. The performance confirmation of these last results with the validation dataset, indicated that the highest sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV (99.44%, 99.44%, and 96.88, respectively) were attained with HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES for donor sites and SSF-like (92.63%, 92.65%, and 84.44, respectively) for acceptor sites. We provide recommendations for combining algorithms to conduct in silico splicing analysis that achieved a high performance. The high NPV obtained allows to select the variants in which the study by in vitro RNA analysis is mandatory against those with a negligible probability of being spliceogenic. Our study also shows that the performance of each specific predictor varies depending on whether the natural splicing sites are donors or acceptors. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6134256/ /pubmed/30233647 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00366 Text en Copyright © 2018 Moles-Fernández, Duran-Lozano, Montalban, Bonache, López-Perolio, Menéndez, Santamariña, Behar, Blanco, Carrasco, López-Fernández, Stjepanovic, Balmaña, Capellá, Pineda, Vega, Lázaro, de la Hoya, Diez and Gutiérrez-Enríquez. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Genetics
Moles-Fernández, Alejandro
Duran-Lozano, Laura
Montalban, Gemma
Bonache, Sandra
López-Perolio, Irene
Menéndez, Mireia
Santamariña, Marta
Behar, Raquel
Blanco, Ana
Carrasco, Estela
López-Fernández, Adrià
Stjepanovic, Neda
Balmaña, Judith
Capellá, Gabriel
Pineda, Marta
Vega, Ana
Lázaro, Conxi
de la Hoya, Miguel
Diez, Orland
Gutiérrez-Enríquez, Sara
Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
title Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
title_full Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
title_fullStr Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
title_full_unstemmed Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
title_short Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
title_sort computational tools for splicing defect prediction in breast/ovarian cancer genes: how efficient are they at predicting rna alterations?
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30233647
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2018.00366
work_keys_str_mv AT molesfernandezalejandro computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT duranlozanolaura computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT montalbangemma computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT bonachesandra computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT lopezperolioirene computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT menendezmireia computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT santamarinamarta computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT beharraquel computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT blancoana computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT carrascoestela computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT lopezfernandezadria computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT stjepanovicneda computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT balmanajudith computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT capellagabriel computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT pinedamarta computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT vegaana computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT lazaroconxi computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT delahoyamiguel computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT diezorland computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations
AT gutierrezenriquezsara computationaltoolsforsplicingdefectpredictioninbreastovariancancergeneshowefficientaretheyatpredictingrnaalterations