ArticleGenome medicine2023
Evaluating the use of paralogous protein domains to increase data availability for missense variant classification.
Article in Genome medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Novel DMD Frameshift Variant (p.Leu2017Profs*5) in Spectrin-Like Repeat 16 Expands the Mutational Spectrum of DMD.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2026Article
- Distinct Pathogenic Mechanisms of Two Novel NHS Mutations Identified in Chinese Han Families With Nance-Horan Syndrome.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Genetic constraint at single amino acid resolution in protein domains improves missense variant prioritisation and gene discovery.Genome medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of the ABC and ACMG systems for variant classification.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClassification of rare missense variants remains an ongoing challenge in genomic medicine. Evidence of pathogenicity is often sparse, and decisions about how to weigh different evidence classes may be subjective. We used a Bayesian variant classification framework to investigate the performance of variant co-localisation, missense constraint, and aggregating data across paralogous protein domains ("meta-domains").
methodsWe constructed a database of all possible coding single nucleotide variants in the human genome and used PFam predictions to annotate structurally-equivalent positions across protein domains. We counted the number of pathogenic and benign missense variants at these equivalent positions in the ClinVar database, calculated a regional constraint score for each meta-domain, and assessed this approach versus existing missense constraint metrics for classifying variant pathogenicity and benignity.
resultsAlternative pathogenic missense variants at the same amino acid position in the same protein provide strong evidence of pathogenicity (positive likelihood ratio, LR+ = 85). Additionally, clinically annotated pathogenic or benign missense variants at equivalent positions in different proteins can provide moderate evidence of pathogenicity (LR+ = 7) or benignity (LR+ = 5), respectively. Applying these approaches sequentially (through PM5) increases sensitivity for classifying pathogenic missense variants from 27 to 41%. Missense constraint can also provide strong evidence of pathogenicity for some variants, but its absence provides no evidence of benignity.
conclusionsWe propose using structurally equivalent positions across related protein domains from different genes to augment evidence for variant co-localisation when classifying novel missense variants. Additionally, we advocate adopting a numerical evidence-based approach to integrating diverse data in variant interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.