The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of in silico splice tools for decision-making in molecular diagnosis
Open accessAbstract
It appears that all types of genomic nucleotide variations can be deleterious by affecting normal pre-mRNA splicing via disruption/creation of splice site consensus sequences. As it is neither pertinent nor realistic to perform functional testing for all of these variants, it is important to identify those that could lead to a splice defect in order to restrict transcript analyses to the most appropriate cases. Web-based tools designed to provide such predictions are available. We evaluated the performance of six of these tools (Splice Site Prediction by Neural Network [NNSplice], Splice-Site Finder [SSF], MaxEntScan [MES], Automated Splice-Site Analyses [ASSA], Exonic Splicing Enhancer [ESE] Finder, and Relative Enhancer and Silencer Classification by Unanimous Enrichment [RESCUE]-ESE) using 39 unrelated retinoblastoma patients carrying different RB1 variants (31 intronic and eight exonic). These 39 patients were screened for abnormal splicing using puromycin-treated cell lines and the results were compared to the predictions. As expected, 17 variants impacting canonical AG/GT splice sites were correctly predicted as deleterious. A total of 22 variations occurring at loosely defined positions (+/-60 nucleotides from an AG/GT site) led to a splice defect in 19 cases and 16 of them were classified as deleterious by at least one tool (84% sensitivity). In other words, three variants escaped in silico detection and the remaining three were correctly predicted as neutral. Overall our results suggest that a combination of complementary in silico tools is necessary to guide molecular geneticists (balance between the time and cost required by RNA analysis and the risk of missing a deleterious mutation) because the weaknesses of one in silico tool may be overcome by the results of another tool.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms
Bradley, A. P. (1997) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/s0031-3203(96)00142-2 · Cited by 7,217
Listening to silence and understanding nonsense: exonic mutations that affect splicing
Cartegni, L., Chew, S. L., & Krainer, A. R. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg775 · Cited by 2,209
Cited by
Houdayer, C., Caux-Moncoutier, V., Krieger, S., Barrois, M., Bonnet, F., Bourdon, V., Bronner, M., Buisson, M., Coulet, F., Gaildrat, P., et al. (2012) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.22101 · Cited by 239
Self-citationIn silico tools for splicing defect prediction: a survey from the viewpoint of end users
Jian, X., Boerwinkle, E., & Liu, X. (2014) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2013.176 · Cited by 146
A High-Throughput Functional Complementation Assay for Classification of BRCA1 Missense Variants
Bouwman, P., van der Gulden, H., van der Heijden, I., Drost, R., Klijn, C. N., Prasetyanti, P., Pieterse, M., Wientjens, E., Seibler, J., Hogervorst, F. B. L., et al. (2013) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-13-0094 · Cited by 140
Metadata
- Authors
- Houdayer, C., Dehainault, C., Mattler, C., Michaux, D., Caux-Moncoutier, V., Pagès-Berhouet, S., d'Enghien, C. D., Laugé, A., Castera, L., Gauthier-Villars, M., & Stoppa-Lyonnet, D.
- Venue
- Human Mutation
- Publisher
- Hindawi Limited
- Published
- 2008
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 975-982
- ISSN
- 1059-7794 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-1004
- OpenAlex
- W2010650881
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of in silico splice tools for decision-making in molecular diagnosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/humu.20765
- The paper
- Houdayer, C., Dehainault, C., Mattler, C., Michaux, D., Caux-Moncoutier, V., Pagès-Berhouet, S., d'Enghien, C. D., Laugé, A., Castera, L., Gauthier-Villars, M., & Stoppa-Lyonnet, D. (2008). Evaluation of in silico splice tools for decision-making in molecular diagnosis. Human Mutation. https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20765
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.