↓ Skip to main content

Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computational Tools for Splicing Defect Prediction in Breast/Ovarian Cancer Genes: How Efficient Are They at Predicting RNA Alterations?
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2018.00366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandro Moles-Fernández, Laura Duran-Lozano, Gemma Montalban, Sandra Bonache, Irene López-Perolio, Mireia Menéndez, Marta Santamariña, Raquel Behar, Ana Blanco, Estela Carrasco, Adrià López-Fernández, Neda Stjepanovic, Judith Balmaña, Gabriel Capellá, Marta Pineda, Ana Vega, Conxi Lázaro, Miguel de la Hoya, Orland Diez, Sara Gutiérrez-Enríquez

Abstract

In silico tools for splicing defect prediction have a key role to assess the impact of variants of uncertain significance. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of a set of commonly used splicing in silico tools comparing the predictions against RNA in vitro results. This was done for natural splice sites of clinically relevant genes in hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) and Lynch syndrome. A study divided into two stages was used to evaluate SSF-like, MaxEntScan, NNSplice, HSF, SPANR, and dbscSNV tools. A discovery dataset of 99 variants with unequivocal results of RNA in vitro studies, located in the 10 exonic and 20 intronic nucleotides adjacent to exon-intron boundaries of BRCA1, BRCA2, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2, ATM, BRIP1, CDH1, PALB2, PTEN, RAD51D, STK11, and TP53, was collected from four Spanish cancer genetic laboratories. The best stand-alone predictors or combinations were validated with a set of 346 variants in the same genes with clear splicing outcomes reported in the literature. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV) and Mathews Coefficient Correlation (MCC) scores were used to measure the performance. The discovery stage showed that HSF and SSF-like were the most accurate for variants at the donor and acceptor region, respectively. The further combination analysis revealed that HSF, HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES achieved a high performance for predicting the disruption of donor sites, and SSF-like or a sequential combination of MES and SSF-like for predicting disruption of acceptor sites. The performance confirmation of these last results with the validation dataset, indicated that the highest sensitivity, accuracy, and NPV (99.44%, 99.44%, and 96.88, respectively) were attained with HSF+SSF-like or HSF+SSF-like+MES for donor sites and SSF-like (92.63%, 92.65%, and 84.44, respectively) for acceptor sites. We provide recommendations for combining algorithms to conduct in silico splicing analysis that achieved a high performance. The high NPV obtained allows to select the variants in which the study by in vitro RNA analysis is mandatory against those with a negligible probability of being spliceogenic. Our study also shows that the performance of each specific predictor varies depending on whether the natural splicing sites are donors or acceptors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 113 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 38 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 43 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 41 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2018.
All research outputs
#4,966,727
of 24,836,260 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,515
of 13,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,809
of 340,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#47
of 205 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,836,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,368 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 205 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.