Proteome-scale prediction of molecular mechanisms underlying dominant genetic diseases
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1371/journal.pone.0307312
Abstract
Many dominant genetic disorders result from protein-altering mutations, acting primarily through dominant-negative (DN), gain-of-function (GOF), and loss-of-function (LOF) mechanisms. Deciphering the mechanisms by which dominant diseases exert their effects is often experimentally challenging and resource intensive, but is essential for developing appropriate therapeutic approaches. Diseases that arise via a LOF mechanism are more amenable to be treated by conventional gene therapy, whereas DN and GOF mechanisms may require gene editing or targeting by small molecules. Moreover, pathogenic missense mutations that act via DN and GOF mechanisms are more difficult to identify than those that act via LOF using nearly all currently available variant effect predictors. Here, we introduce a tripartite statistical model made up of support vector machine binary classifiers trained to predict whether human protein-coding genes are likely to be associated with DN, GOF, or LOF molecular disease mechanisms. We test the utility of the predictions by examining biologically and clinically meaningful properties known to be associated with the mechanisms. Our results strongly support that the models are able to generalise on unseen data and offer insight into the functional attributes of proteins associated with different mechanisms. We hope that our predictions will serve as a springboard for researchers studying novel variants and those of uncertain clinical significance, guiding variant interpretation strategies and experimental characterisation. Predictions for the human UniProt reference proteome are available at https://osf.io/z4dcp/ .
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
Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome
Tunyasuvunakool, K., Adler, J., Wu, Z., Green, T., Zielinski, M., Žídek, A., Bridgland, A., Cowie, A., Meyer, C., Laydon, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1 · Cited by 3,025 · see citing works
Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model
Riley, R. D., Ensor, J., Snell, K. I. E., Harrell, F. E., Martin, G. P., Reitsma, J. B., Moons, K. G. M., Collins, G., & van Smeden, M. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m441 · Cited by 2,917 · see citing works
Disease variant prediction with deep generative models of evolutionary data
Frazer, J., Notin, P., Dias, M., Gomez, A., Min, J. K., Brock, K., Gal, Y., & Marks, D. S. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04043-8 · Cited by 791 · see citing works
Kim, J., Jiang, H., Park, S., Eltorai, A. E. M., Stewart, F. R., Yoon, H., Basak, J. M., Finn, M. B., & Holtzman, D. M. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3773-11.2011 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
The structural coverage of the human proteome before and after AlphaFold
Porta-Pardo, E., Ruiz-Serra, V., Valentini, S., & Valencia, A. (2022) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009818 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Badonyi, M., & Marsh, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Genetics and Cancer (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Badonyi, Mihaly
- Venue
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2023-09-08
- OpenAlex
- W4386553488
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- European Commission (HORIZON2020)
- Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
- Directorate for Biological Sciences
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/M010996/1)
- H2020 European Research Council (101001169)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- dominant negative mutation, gain-of-function mutations, loss-of-function mutations, missense mutations, variant effect prediction, protein-coding genes, support vector classifier, variant interpretation, variants of uncertain significance, gene therapy, genome editing, small molecule targeting
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