The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods
Open accessAbstract
Prediction of the biological effect of missense substitutions has become important because they are often observed in known or candidate disease susceptibility genes. In this paper, we carried out a 3-step analysis of 1514 missense substitutions in the DNA-binding domain (DBD) of TP53, the most frequently mutated gene in human cancers. First, we calculated two types of conservation scores based on a TP53 multiple sequence alignment (MSA) for each substitution: (i) Grantham Variation (GV), which measures the degree of biochemical variation among amino acids found at a given position in the MSA; (ii) Grantham Deviation (GD), which reflects the 'biochemical distance' of the mutant amino acid from the observed amino acid at a particular position (given by GV). Second, we used a method that combines GV and GD scores, Align-GVGD, to predict the transactivation activity of each missense substitution. We compared our predictions against experimentally measured transactivation activity (yeast assays) to evaluate their accuracy. Finally, the prediction results were compared with those obtained by the program Sorting Intolerant from Tolerant (SIFT) and Dayhoff's classification. Our predictions yielded high prediction accuracy for mutants showing a loss of transactivation ( approximately 88% specificity) with lower prediction accuracy for mutants with transactivation similar to that of the wild-type (67.9 to 71.2% sensitivity). Align-GVGD results were comparable to SIFT (88.3 to 90.6% and 67.4 to 70.3% specificity and sensitivity, respectively) and outperformed Dayhoff's classification (80 and 40.9% specificity and sensitivity, respectively). These results further demonstrate the utility of the Align-GVGD method, which was previously applied to BRCA1. Align-GVGD is available online at http://agvgd.iarc.fr.
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
Vogelstein, B., Lane, D., & Levine, A. J. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35042675 · Cited by 6,607 · cited 1×
“P53 regulates the transcription of several genes involved in DNA repair, cell cycle checkpoints or apoptosis (19).”
BackgroundCrystal Structure of a p53 Tumor Suppressor-DNA Complex: Understanding Tumorigenic Mutations
Cho, Y., Gorina, S., Jeffrey, P. D., & Pavletich, N. P. (1994) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.8023157 · Cited by 2,551 · cited 1×
“The GV values were mapped on to the 3D structure of the DBD of p53 (26), comprising residues 96 to 289 (Figure 3).”
MethodThe 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
Bobadilla, J. L., Macek, M., Fine, J. P., & Farrell, P. M. (2002) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.10041 · Cited by 1,032
The human gene mutation database
Cooper, D. (1998) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/26.1.285 · Cited by 604
Walker, D. R., Bond, J. P., Tarone, R. E., Harris, C. C., Makalowski, W., Boguski, M. S., & Greenblatt, M. S. (1999) · Oncogene · doi:10.1038/sj.onc.1202298 · Cited by 198
Cited by
Kumar, P., Henikoff, S., & Ng, P. C. (2009) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/nprot.2009.86 · Cited by 6,521
Petitjean, A., Mathe, E., Kato, S., Ishioka, C., Tavtigian, S. V., Hainaut, P., & Olivier, M. (2007) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.20495 · Cited by 1,598
“fr]) based on interspecies sequence conservation [Mathe et al., 2006].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialBouaoun, L., Sonkin, D., Ardin, M., Hollstein, M., Byrnes, G., Zavadil, J., & Olivier, M. (2016) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.23035 · Cited by 730
Mutational processes shape the landscape of TP53 mutations in human cancer
Giacomelli, A. O., Yang, X., Lintner, R. E., McFarland, J. M., Duby, M., Kim, J., Howard, T. P., Takeda, D. Y., Ly, S. H., Kim, E., et al. (2018) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41588-018-0204-y · Cited by 556
Hicks, S., Wheeler, D. A., Plon, S. E., & Kimmel, M. (2011) · Human Mutation · doi:10.1002/humu.21490 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Mathe, E.
- Venue
- Nucleic Acids Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-03-06
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1317-1325
- ISSN
- 0305-1048 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-4962
- OpenAlex
- W2125356853
- Cited by
- 340
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/nar/gkj518
- The paper
- Mathe, E. (2006). Computational approaches for predicting the biological effect of p53 missense mutations: a comparison of three sequence analysis based methods. Nucleic Acids Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkj518
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.