Cargando…
How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants?
Computational tools are widely used for interpreting variants detected in sequencing projects. The choice of these tools is critical for reliable variant impact interpretation for precision medicine and should be based on systematic performance assessment. The performance of the methods varies widel...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386394/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30742610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006481 |
_version_ | 1783397376690487296 |
---|---|
author | Niroula, Abhishek Vihinen, Mauno |
author_facet | Niroula, Abhishek Vihinen, Mauno |
author_sort | Niroula, Abhishek |
collection | PubMed |
description | Computational tools are widely used for interpreting variants detected in sequencing projects. The choice of these tools is critical for reliable variant impact interpretation for precision medicine and should be based on systematic performance assessment. The performance of the methods varies widely in different performance assessments, for example due to the contents and sizes of test datasets. To address this issue, we obtained 63,160 common amino acid substitutions (allele frequency ≥1% and <25%) from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database, which contains variants from 60,706 genomes or exomes. We evaluated the specificity, the capability to detect benign variants, for 10 variant interpretation tools. In addition to overall specificity of the tools, we tested their performance for variants in six geographical populations. PON-P2 had the best performance (95.5%) followed by FATHMM (86.4%) and VEST (83.5%). While these tools had excellent performance, the poorest method predicted more than one third of the benign variants to be disease-causing. The results allow choosing reliable methods for benign variant interpretation, for both research and clinical purposes, as well as provide a benchmark for method developers. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6386394 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-63863942019-03-08 How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? Niroula, Abhishek Vihinen, Mauno PLoS Comput Biol Research Article Computational tools are widely used for interpreting variants detected in sequencing projects. The choice of these tools is critical for reliable variant impact interpretation for precision medicine and should be based on systematic performance assessment. The performance of the methods varies widely in different performance assessments, for example due to the contents and sizes of test datasets. To address this issue, we obtained 63,160 common amino acid substitutions (allele frequency ≥1% and <25%) from the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAC) database, which contains variants from 60,706 genomes or exomes. We evaluated the specificity, the capability to detect benign variants, for 10 variant interpretation tools. In addition to overall specificity of the tools, we tested their performance for variants in six geographical populations. PON-P2 had the best performance (95.5%) followed by FATHMM (86.4%) and VEST (83.5%). While these tools had excellent performance, the poorest method predicted more than one third of the benign variants to be disease-causing. The results allow choosing reliable methods for benign variant interpretation, for both research and clinical purposes, as well as provide a benchmark for method developers. Public Library of Science 2019-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6386394/ /pubmed/30742610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006481 Text en © 2019 Niroula, Vihinen http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Niroula, Abhishek Vihinen, Mauno How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
title | How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
title_full | How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
title_fullStr | How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
title_full_unstemmed | How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
title_short | How good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
title_sort | how good are pathogenicity predictors in detecting benign variants? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386394/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30742610 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006481 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT niroulaabhishek howgoodarepathogenicitypredictorsindetectingbenignvariants AT vihinenmauno howgoodarepathogenicitypredictorsindetectingbenignvariants |