PreprintCited by 375Genomics and Rare DiseasesBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Improved exome prioritization of disease genes through cross-species phenotype comparison

Open access
Robinson, Peter N., Köhler, Sebastian, Oellrich, Anika, Sanger Mouse Genetics Project, Wang, Kai, Mungall, Christopher J., Lewis, Suzanna E., Washington, Nicole +6 more·2014·Genome Research

Abstract

Numerous new disease-gene associations have been identified by whole-exome sequencing studies in the last few years. However, many cases remain unsolved due to the sheer number of candidate variants remaining after common filtering strategies such as removing low quality and common variants and those deemed unlikely to be pathogenic. The observation that each of our genomes contains about 100 genuine loss-of-function variants makes identification of the causative mutation problematic when using these strategies alone. We propose using the wealth of genotype to phenotype data that already exists from model organism studies to assess the potential impact of these exome variants. Here, we introduce PH enotypic I nterpretation of V ariants in E xomes (PHIVE), an algorithm that integrates the calculation of phenotype similarity between human diseases and genetically modified mouse models with evaluation of the variants according to allele frequency, pathogenicity, and mode of inheritance approaches in our Exomiser tool. Large-scale validation of PHIVE analysis using 100,000 exomes containing known mutations demonstrated a substantial improvement (up to 54.1-fold) over purely variant-based (frequency and pathogenicity) methods with the correct gene recalled as the top hit in up to 83% of samples, corresponding to an area under the ROC curve of >95%. We conclude that incorporation of phenotype data can play a vital role in translational bioinformatics and propose that exome sequencing projects should systematically capture clinical phenotypes to take advantage of the strategy presented here.

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 · 10.1101/gr.160325.113

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Robinson, P. N., Köhler, S., Oellrich, A., Sanger Mouse Genetics Project, Wang, K., Mungall, C. J., Lewis, S. E., Washington, N., Bauer, S., Seelow, D., Krawitz, P., Gilissen, C., Haendel, M., & Smedley, D.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
  • Wellcome Sanger Institute (GB)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Robinson, Peter N.
  • Smedley, Damian
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2013-10-25
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
340-348
ISSN
1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2127006085
Cited by
375
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (-AC02-05CH11231, 05CH11231, DE AC02 05CH11231, DE-AC02-)
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DE-AC02-05CH11231)
  • Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (0313911)
  • National Institutes of Health (R24OD011883, DE-AC02–05CH11231)
  • Office of Science (DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02)
  • Basic Energy Sciences (DE-AC02, DE-AC02-05CH11231., AC02–05CH11231)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
disease gene prioritization, Exomiser, loss-of-function mutations, genotype-phenotype data, mouse model, allele frequency, pathogenicity, mode of inheritance
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Humans, Phenotype, Software, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Computational Biology, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Databases, Genetic, Mice, Genetic Association Studies, Exome

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