Cargando…

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

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Borges, Pâmella, Pasqualim, Gabriela, Matte, Ursula
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8566697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34746235
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.752797
_version_ 1784594068690436096
author Borges, Pâmella
Pasqualim, Gabriela
Matte, Ursula
author_facet Borges, Pâmella
Pasqualim, Gabriela
Matte, Ursula
author_sort Borges, Pâmella
collection PubMed
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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8566697
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85666972021-11-05 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 Pasqualim, Gabriela Matte, Ursula Front Mol Biosci Molecular Biosciences 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8566697/ /pubmed/34746235 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.752797 Text en Copyright © 2021 Borges, Pasqualim and Matte. https://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 Molecular Biosciences
Borges, Pâmella
Pasqualim, Gabriela
Matte, Ursula
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
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_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_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
topic Molecular Biosciences
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8566697/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34746235
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2021.752797
work_keys_str_mv AT borgespamella whichisthebestinsilicoprogramforthemissensevariationsiniduageneacomparisonof33programsplusaconservationscoreandevaluationof586missensevariants
AT pasqualimgabriela whichisthebestinsilicoprogramforthemissensevariationsiniduageneacomparisonof33programsplusaconservationscoreandevaluationof586missensevariants
AT matteursula whichisthebestinsilicoprogramforthemissensevariationsiniduageneacomparisonof33programsplusaconservationscoreandevaluationof586missensevariants