Are Next-Generation Pathogenicity Predictors Applicable to Cancer?
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Next-generation pathogenicity predictors are designed to identify pathogenic mutations in genetic disorders but are increasingly used to detect driver mutations in cancer. Despite this, their suitability for cancer is not fully established. Here we have assessed the effectiveness of next-generation pathogenicity predictors when applied to cancer by using a comprehensive experimental benchmark of cancer driver and neutral mutations. Our findings indicate that state-of-the-art methods AlphaMissense and VARITY demonstrate commendable performance despite generally underperforming compared to cancer-specific methods. This is notable considering that these methods do not explicitly incorporate cancer-related data in their training and have made concerted efforts to prevent data leakage from the human-curated training and test sets. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that a significant limitation of using pathogenicity predictors for cancer arises from their inability to detect cancer potential driver mutations specific for a particular cancer type.
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
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.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Richards, S., Aziz, N., Bale, S., Bick, D., Das, S., Gastier-Foster, J., Grody, W. W., Hegde, M., Lyon, E., Spector, E., et al. (2015) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1038/gim.2015.30 · Cited by 32,594 · see citing works
The IARC TP53 database: new online mutation analysis and recommendations to users
Olivier, M., Eeles, R., Hollstein, M., Khan, M. A., Harris, C. C., & Hainaut, P. (2002) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.10081 · Cited by 1,248 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
An interpretable molecular framework for predicting cancer driver missense mutations
Yang, Y., Sun, W., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., & Li, M. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2524289123 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ostroverkhova, D., Sheng, Y., & Panchenko, A.
- Affiliations
- Queen's University (CA)
- Ontario Institute for Cancer Research (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Panchenko, Anna
- Venue
- Journal of Molecular Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 436
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 168644
- ISSN
- 0022-2836 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4399367386
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Molecular Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › BRCA gene mutations in cancer
- Keywords
- pathogenicity prediction, cancer driver mutations, AlphaMissense, mutation effect prediction, benchmarking, data leakage, neutral mutations
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Mutation, Neoplasms, Computational Biology
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