Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 162

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 access
Houdayer, Claude, Dehainault, Catherine, Mattler, Christophe, Michaux, Dorothée, Caux-Moncoutier, Virginie, Pagès-Berhouet, Sabine, d'Enghien, Catherine Dubois, Laugé, Anthony, Castera, Laurent, Gauthier-Villars, Marion, Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique·2008·Human Mutation

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/humu.20765

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 162

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
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.