The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies
Open accessAbstract
Accurate deleteriousness prediction for nonsynonymous variants is crucial for distinguishing pathogenic mutations from background polymorphisms in whole exome sequencing (WES) studies. Although many deleteriousness prediction methods have been developed, their prediction results are sometimes inconsistent with each other and their relative merits are still unclear in practical applications. To address these issues, we comprehensively evaluated the predictive performance of 18 current deleteriousness-scoring methods, including 11 function prediction scores (PolyPhen-2, SIFT, MutationTaster, Mutation Assessor, FATHMM, LRT, PANTHER, PhD-SNP, SNAP, SNPs&GO and MutPred), 3 conservation scores (GERP++, SiPhy and PhyloP) and 4 ensemble scores (CADD, PON-P, KGGSeq and CONDEL). We found that FATHMM and KGGSeq had the highest discriminative power among independent scores and ensemble scores, respectively. Moreover, to ensure unbiased performance evaluation of these prediction scores, we manually collected three distinct testing datasets, on which no current prediction scores were tuned. In addition, we developed two new ensemble scores that integrate nine independent scores and allele frequency. Our scores achieved the highest discriminative power compared with all the deleteriousness prediction scores tested and showed low false-positive prediction rate for benign yet rare nonsynonymous variants, which demonstrated the value of combining information from multiple orthologous approaches. Finally, to facilitate variant prioritization in WES studies, we have pre-computed our ensemble scores for 87 347 044 possible variants in the whole-exome and made them publicly available through the ANNOVAR software and the dbNSFP database.
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
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves
Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.-C., & Müller, M. (2011) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-77 · Cited by 13,697
A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations.
Adzhubei, I. A., Schmidt, S., Peshkin, L., Ramensky, V. E., Gerasimova, A., Bork, P., Kondrashov, A. S., & Sunyaev, S. R. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth0410-248 · Cited by 13,194
A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing.
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09534 · Cited by 7,877
An integrated map of genetic variation from 1,092 human genomes
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11632 · Cited by 7,711
Kumar, P., Henikoff, S., & Ng, P. C. (2009) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.86 · Cited by 6,521
The ENCODE Project Consortium (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05874 · Cited by 5,223
MutationTaster evaluates disease-causing potential of sequence alterations
Schwarz, J. M., Rödelsperger, C., Schuelke, M., & Seelow, D. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth0810-575 · Cited by 2,975
Identifying a High Fraction of the Human Genome to be under Selective Constraint Using GERP++
Davydov, E. V., Goode, D. L., Sirota, M., Cooper, G. M., Sidow, A., & Batzoglou, S. (2010) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001025 · Cited by 1,757
Cited by
REVEL: An Ensemble Method for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Rare Missense Variants
Ioannidis, N. M., Rothstein, J. H., Pejaver, V., Middha, S., McDonnell, S. K., Baheti, S., Musolf, A., Li, Q., Holzinger, E., Karyadi, D., et al. (2016) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.08.016 · Cited by 2,908
Cunningham, F., Achuthan, P., Akanni, W., Allen, J., Amode, M. R., Armean, I. M., Bennett, R., Bhai, J., Billis, K., Boddu, S., et al. (2019) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gky1113 · Cited by 925
InterVar: Clinical Interpretation of Genetic Variants by the 2015 ACMG-AMP Guidelines
Li, Q., & Wang, K. (2017) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.004 · Cited by 1,038
Self-citationLiu, X., Wu, C., Li, C., & Boerwinkle, E. (2016) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.22932 · Cited by 983
Self-citationInferring the molecular and phenotypic impact of amino acid variants with MutPred2
Pejaver, V., Urresti, J., Lugo-Martinez, J., Pagel, K. A., Lin, G. N., Nam, H.-J., Mort, M., Cooper, D. N., Sebat, J., Iakoucheva, L. M., et al. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19669-x · Cited by 923
Metadata
- Authors
- Dong, C., Wei, P., Jian, X., Gibbs, R., Boerwinkle, E., Wang, K., & Liu, X.
- Venue
- Human Molecular Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2014-12-30
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 2125-2137
- ISSN
- 0964-6906 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2083
- OpenAlex
- W2129952088
- Cited by
- 1,128
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 30.51
- 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: Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/hmg/ddu733
- The paper
- Dong, C., Wei, P., Jian, X., Gibbs, R., Boerwinkle, E., Wang, K., & Liu, X. (2015). Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies. Human Molecular Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddu733
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.