使用已建立的剪接变异体进行剪接改变变异体预测的硅工具的比较:一个最终用户的观点。

IF 2.6 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY International Journal of Genomics Pub Date : 2022-10-13 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/5265686
Woori Jang, Joonhong Park, Hyojin Chae, Myungshin Kim
{"title":"使用已建立的剪接变异体进行剪接改变变异体预测的硅工具的比较:一个最终用户的观点。","authors":"Woori Jang,&nbsp;Joonhong Park,&nbsp;Hyojin Chae,&nbsp;Myungshin Kim","doi":"10.1155/2022/5265686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assessing the impact of variants of unknown significance on splicing has become a critical issue and a bottleneck, especially with the widespread implementation of whole-genome or exome sequencing. Although multiple <i>in silico</i> tools are available, the interpretation and application of these tools are difficult and practical guidelines are still lacking. A streamlined decision-making process can facilitate the downstream RNA analysis in a more efficient manner. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of 8 <i>in silico</i> tools (Splice Site Finder, MaxEntScan, Splice-site prediction by neural network, GeneSplicer, Human Splicing Finder, SpliceAI, Splicing Predictions in Consensus Elements, and SpliceRover) using 114 <i>NF1</i> spliceogenic variants, experimentally validated at the mRNA level. The change in the predicted score incurred by the variant of the nearest wild-type splice site was analyzed, and for type II, III, and IV splice variants, the change in the prediction score of <i>de novo</i> or cryptic splice site was also analyzed. SpliceAI and SpliceRover, tools based on deep learning, outperformed all other tools, with AUCs of 0.972 and 0.924, respectively. For <i>de novo</i> and cryptic splice sites, SpliceAI outperformed all other tools and showed a sensitivity of 95.7% at an optimal cut-off of 0.02 score change. Our results show that deep learning algorithms, especially those of SpliceAI, are validated at a significantly higher rate than other <i>in silico</i> tools for clinically relevant <i>NF1</i> variants. This suggests that deep learning algorithms outperform traditional probabilistic approaches and classical machine learning tools in predicting the <i>de novo</i> and cryptic splice sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":13988,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Genomics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9584665/pdf/","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of <i>In Silico</i> Tools for Splice-Altering Variant Prediction Using Established Spliceogenic Variants: An End-User's Point of View.\",\"authors\":\"Woori Jang,&nbsp;Joonhong Park,&nbsp;Hyojin Chae,&nbsp;Myungshin Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2022/5265686\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Assessing the impact of variants of unknown significance on splicing has become a critical issue and a bottleneck, especially with the widespread implementation of whole-genome or exome sequencing. Although multiple <i>in silico</i> tools are available, the interpretation and application of these tools are difficult and practical guidelines are still lacking. A streamlined decision-making process can facilitate the downstream RNA analysis in a more efficient manner. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of 8 <i>in silico</i> tools (Splice Site Finder, MaxEntScan, Splice-site prediction by neural network, GeneSplicer, Human Splicing Finder, SpliceAI, Splicing Predictions in Consensus Elements, and SpliceRover) using 114 <i>NF1</i> spliceogenic variants, experimentally validated at the mRNA level. The change in the predicted score incurred by the variant of the nearest wild-type splice site was analyzed, and for type II, III, and IV splice variants, the change in the prediction score of <i>de novo</i> or cryptic splice site was also analyzed. SpliceAI and SpliceRover, tools based on deep learning, outperformed all other tools, with AUCs of 0.972 and 0.924, respectively. For <i>de novo</i> and cryptic splice sites, SpliceAI outperformed all other tools and showed a sensitivity of 95.7% at an optimal cut-off of 0.02 score change. Our results show that deep learning algorithms, especially those of SpliceAI, are validated at a significantly higher rate than other <i>in silico</i> tools for clinically relevant <i>NF1</i> variants. This suggests that deep learning algorithms outperform traditional probabilistic approaches and classical machine learning tools in predicting the <i>de novo</i> and cryptic splice sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13988,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Genomics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9584665/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Genomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5265686\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Genomics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5265686","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

评估未知意义变异对剪接的影响已成为一个关键问题和瓶颈,特别是随着全基因组或外显子组测序的广泛实施。虽然有多种计算机工具可用,但这些工具的解释和应用是困难的,并且仍然缺乏实用的指导方针。简化的决策过程可以更有效地促进下游RNA分析。因此,我们使用114种NF1剪接基因变异,在mRNA水平上进行了实验验证,评估了8种计算机工具(Splice Site Finder、MaxEntScan、神经网络剪接位点预测、GeneSplicer、Human Splicing Finder、SpliceAI、SpliceRover)的性能。分析了最近野生型剪接位点变异引起的预测分数变化,并分析了II型、III型和IV型剪接变异引起的新剪接位点或隐剪接位点预测分数的变化。基于深度学习的工具SpliceAI和SpliceRover的auc分别为0.972和0.924,优于所有其他工具。对于新生剪接位点和隐剪接位点,SpliceAI优于所有其他工具,在0.02分变化的最佳截止值下显示出95.7%的灵敏度。我们的研究结果表明,深度学习算法,特别是SpliceAI的算法,在临床相关NF1变异方面的验证率明显高于其他计算机工具。这表明深度学习算法在预测新剪接位点和隐剪接位点方面优于传统的概率方法和经典的机器学习工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of In Silico Tools for Splice-Altering Variant Prediction Using Established Spliceogenic Variants: An End-User's Point of View.

Assessing the impact of variants of unknown significance on splicing has become a critical issue and a bottleneck, especially with the widespread implementation of whole-genome or exome sequencing. Although multiple in silico tools are available, the interpretation and application of these tools are difficult and practical guidelines are still lacking. A streamlined decision-making process can facilitate the downstream RNA analysis in a more efficient manner. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of 8 in silico tools (Splice Site Finder, MaxEntScan, Splice-site prediction by neural network, GeneSplicer, Human Splicing Finder, SpliceAI, Splicing Predictions in Consensus Elements, and SpliceRover) using 114 NF1 spliceogenic variants, experimentally validated at the mRNA level. The change in the predicted score incurred by the variant of the nearest wild-type splice site was analyzed, and for type II, III, and IV splice variants, the change in the prediction score of de novo or cryptic splice site was also analyzed. SpliceAI and SpliceRover, tools based on deep learning, outperformed all other tools, with AUCs of 0.972 and 0.924, respectively. For de novo and cryptic splice sites, SpliceAI outperformed all other tools and showed a sensitivity of 95.7% at an optimal cut-off of 0.02 score change. Our results show that deep learning algorithms, especially those of SpliceAI, are validated at a significantly higher rate than other in silico tools for clinically relevant NF1 variants. This suggests that deep learning algorithms outperform traditional probabilistic approaches and classical machine learning tools in predicting the de novo and cryptic splice sites.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Genomics
International Journal of Genomics BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY-BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
17 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Genomics is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes research articles as well as review articles in all areas of genome-scale analysis. Topics covered by the journal include, but are not limited to: bioinformatics, clinical genomics, disease genomics, epigenomics, evolutionary genomics, functional genomics, genome engineering, and synthetic genomics.
期刊最新文献
Transcription Analysis of the THBS2 Gene through Regulation by Potential Noncoding Diagnostic Biomarkers and Oncogenes of Gastric Cancer in the ECM-Receptor Interaction Signaling Pathway: Integrated System Biology and Experimental Investigation Transmembrane and Ubiquitin-Like Domain-Containing 1 Promotes Glioma Growth and Indicates Unfavorable Prognosis Validation of a Proteomic-Based Prognostic Model for Breast Cancer and Immunological Analysis The Oncogenic Role of KLF7 in Colon Adenocarcinoma and Therapeutic Perspectives CTSK and PLAU as Prognostic Biomarker and Related to Immune Infiltration in Pancreatic Cancer: Evidence from Bioinformatics Analysis and qPCR
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1