Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

Can Predicted Protein 3D Structures Provide Reliable Insights into whether Missense Variants Are Disease Associated?

Sirawit Ittisoponpisan, Suhail A. Islam, Tarun Khanna and 3 more

Journal of Molecular Biology · 2019 · CC BY

doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2019.04.009

Abstract

Knowledge of protein structure can be used to predict the phenotypic consequence of a missense variant. Since structural coverage of the human proteome can be roughly tripled to over 50% of the residues if homology-predicted structures are included in addition to experimentally determined coordinates, it is important to assess the reliability of using predicted models when analyzing missense variants. Accordingly, we assess whether a missense variant is structurally damaging by using experimental and predicted structures. We considered 606 experimental structures and show that 40% of the 1965 disease-associated missense variants analyzed have a structurally damaging change in the mutant structure. Only 11% of the 2134 neutral variants are structurally damaging. Importantly, similar results are obtained when 1052 structures predicted using Phyre2 algorithm were used, even when the model shares low (<40%) sequence identity to the template. Thus, structure-based analysis of the effects of missense variants can be effectively applied to homology models. Our in-house pipeline, Missense3D, for structurally assessing missense variants was made available at http://www.sbg.bio.ic.ac.uk/~missense3d.

References 70

  1. 1.

    Richards S., Aziz N., Bale S., Bick D., Das S., Gastier-Foster J. ACMG Laboratory Quality Assurance Committee Standards and guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants: a joint consensus recommendation of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Genet Med. 2015;17:405-424.

    Not in our library10.1038/gim.2015.30

  2. 2.

    Ellard S, Baple EL, Owens M, Cannon S, Eccles DM, Abbs S, et al. ACGS best practice guidelines for variant classification 2017. ACGS 2017:1–16.

    Not in our library

  3. 3.

    Mardis E.R. The $1,000 genome, the $100,000 analysis? Genome Med. 2010;2:84.

    Not in our library10.1186/gm205

  4. 4.

    Sim N.-L., Kumar P., Hu J., Henikoff S., Schneider G., Ng P.C. SIFT web server: predicting effects of amino acid substitutions on proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:W452-W7.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gks539

  5. 5.
    FATHMM-XF: accurate prediction of pathogenic point mutations via extended features · 2017
    No notice
  6. 6.

    Schwarz J.M., Rödelsperger C., Schuelke M., Seelow D. MutationTaster evaluates disease-causing potential of sequence alterations. Nat. Methods. 2010;7:575-576.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth0810-575

  7. 7.

    González-Pérez A., López-Bigas N. Improving the assessment of the outcome of nonsynonymous SNVs with a consensus deleteriousness score, Condel. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2011;88:440-449.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.03.004

  8. 8.

    Miosge L.A., Field M.A., Sontani Y., Cho V., Johnson S., Palkova A. Comparison of predicted and actual consequences of missense mutations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2015;112:E5189-E98.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1511585112

  9. 9.

    Ioannidis N.M., Rothstein J.H., Pejaver V., Middha S., McDonnell S.K., Baheti S. REVEL: an ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of rare missense variants. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2016;99:877-885.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.08.016

  10. 10.
    OUP accepted manuscript · 2016
    No notice
  11. 11.

    Mir S., Alhroub Y., Anyango S., Armstrong D.R., Berrisford J.M., Clark A.R. PDBe: towards reusable data delivery infrastructure at protein data bank in Europe. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;46:D486-D92.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkx1070

  12. 12.

    Somody J.C., MacKinnon S.S., Windemuth A. Structural coverage of the proteome for pharmaceutical applications. Drug Discov. Today. 2017;22:1792-1799.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.drudis.2017.08.004

  13. 13.

    Buchan D.W., Ward S., Lobley A.E., Nugent T., Bryson K., Jones D.T. Protein annotation and modelling servers at University College London. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:W563-W8.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkq427

  14. 14.

    Glusman G., Rose P.W., Prlić A., Dougherty J., Duarte J.M., Hoffman A.S. Mapping genetic variations to three-dimensional protein structures to enhance variant interpretation: a proposed framework. Genome medicine. 2017;9:113.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13073-017-0509-y

  15. 15.
    Better prediction of functional effects for sequence variants · 2015
    No notice
  16. 16.
    SuSPect: Enhanced Prediction of Single Amino Acid Variant (SAV) Phenotype Using Network Features · 2014
    No notice
  17. 17.

    Adzhubei I.A., Schmidt S., Peshkin L., Ramensky V.E., Gerasimova A., Bork P. A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat. Methods. 2010;7:248-249.

    Not in our library10.1038/nmeth0410-248

  18. 18.

    Van Durme J., Delgado J., Stricher F., Serrano L., Schymkowitz J., Rousseau F. A graphical interface for the FoldX forcefield. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1711-1712.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btr254

  19. 19.
    PoPMuSiC 2.1: a web server for the estimation of protein stability changes upon mutation and sequence optimality · 2011
    No notice
  20. 20.
    mCSM: predicting the effects of mutations in proteins using graph-based signatures · 2013
    No notice
  21. 21.
    DUET: a server for predicting effects of mutations on protein stability using an integrated computational approach · 2014
    No notice
  22. 22.

    Savojardo C., Fariselli P., Martelli P.L., Casadio R. INPS-MD: a web server to predict stability of protein variants from sequence and structure. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:2542-2544.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btw192

  23. 23.

    Zhou H., Gao M., Skolnick J. ENTPRISE: an algorithm for predicting human disease-associated amino acid substitutions from sequence entropy and predicted protein structures. PLoS One. 2016;11.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0150965

  24. 24.

    Bowie J.U., Reidhaar-Olson J.F., Lim W.A., Sauer R.T. Deciphering the message in protein sequences: tolerance to amino acid substitutions. Science. 1990;247:1306-1310.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.2315699

  25. 25.

    Wang Z., Moult J. SNPs, protein structure, and disease. Hum. Mutat. 2001;17:263-270.

    Not in our library10.1002/humu.22

  26. 26.

    Yue P., Li Z., Moult J. Loss of protein structure stability as a major causative factor in monogenic disease. J. Mol. Biol. 2005;353:459-473.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2005.08.020

  27. 27.
    SNPs3D: Candidate gene and SNP selection for association studies · 2006
    No notice
  28. 28.

    Kucukkal T.G., Petukh M., Li L., Alexov E. Structural and physico-chemical effects of disease and non-disease nsSNPs on proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2015;32:18-24.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2015.01.003

  29. 29.

    Gao M., Zhou H., Skolnick J. Insights into disease-associated mutations in the human proteome through protein structural analysis. Structure. 2015;23:1362-1369.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.str.2015.03.028

  30. 30.

    Bhattacharya R., Rose P.W., Burley S.K., Prlić A. Impact of genetic variation on three dimensional structure and function of proteins. PLoS One. 2017;12.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0171355

  31. 31.

    Laddach A., Ng J.C.-F., Chung S.S., Fraternali F. Genetic variants and protein–protein interactions: a multidimensional network-centric view. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2018;50:82-90.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2017.12.006

  32. 32.

    David A., Razali R., Wass M.N., Sternberg M.J.E. Protein–protein interaction sites are hot spots for disease-associated nonsynonymous SNPs. Hum. Mutat. 2012;33:359-363.

    Not in our library10.1002/humu.21656

  33. 33.

    David A., Sternberg M.J. The contribution of missense mutations in core and rim residues of protein–protein interfaces to human disease. J. Mol. Biol. 2015;427:2886-2898.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.004

  34. 34.
    Protein structure analysis of mutations causing inheritable diseases. An e-Science approach with life scientist friendly interfaces · 2010
    No notice
  35. 35.
    SDM: a server for predicting effects of mutations on protein stability · 2017
    No notice
  36. 36.

    Al-Numair N.S., Martin A.C. The SAAP pipeline and database: tools to analyze the impact and predict the pathogenicity of mutations. BMC Genomics. 2013;14:S4.

    Not in our library10.1186/1471-2164-14-s3-s4

  37. 37.

    Williams C.J., Headd J.J., Moriarty N.W., Prisant M.G., Videau L.L., Deis L.N. MolProbity: more and better reference data for improved all-atom structure validation. Protein Sci. 2018;27:293-315.

    Not in our library10.1002/pro.3330

  38. 38.
    UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase · 2018
    No notice
  39. 39.

    Landrum M.J., Lee J.M., Benson M., Brown G.R., Chao C., Chitipiralla S. ClinVar: improving access to variant interpretations and supporting evidence. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;46:D1062-D7.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gkx1153

  40. 40.
    The ExAC browser: displaying reference data information from over 60 000 exomes · 2016
    No notice
All 70 references

Cited by papers we hold 9

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.