Genic Intolerance to Functional Variation and the Interpretation of Personal Genomes

English version České info

A central challenge in interpreting personal genomes is determining which mutations most likely influence disease. Although progress has been made in scoring the functional impact of individual mutations, the characteristics of the genes in which those mutations are found remain largely unexplored. For example, genes known to carry few common functional variants in healthy individuals may be judged more likely to cause certain kinds of disease than genes known to carry many such variants. Until now, however, it has not been possible to develop a quantitative assessment of how well genes tolerate functional genetic variation on a genome-wide scale. Here we describe an effort that uses sequence data from 6503 whole exome sequences made available by the NHLBI Exome Sequencing Project (ESP). Specifically, we develop an intolerance scoring system that assesses whether genes have relatively more or less functional genetic variation than expected based on the apparently neutral variation found in the gene. To illustrate the utility of this intolerance score, we show that genes responsible for Mendelian diseases are significantly more intolerant to functional genetic variation than genes that do not cause any known disease, but with striking variation in intolerance among genes causing different classes of genetic disease. We conclude by showing that use of an intolerance ranking system can aid in interpreting personal genomes and identifying pathogenic mutations.

Vyšlo v časopise: Genic Intolerance to Functional Variation and the Interpretation of Personal Genomes. PLoS Genet 9(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003709
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003709

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. DavydovEV, GoodeDL, SirotaM, CooperGM, SidowA, et al. (2010) Identifying a high fraction of the human genome to be under selective constraint using GERP++. PLoS Comput Biol 6: e1001025.

2. AdzhubeiIA, SchmidtS, PeshkinL, RamenskyVE, GerasimovaA, et al. (2010) A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations. Nat Methods 7: 248–249.

3. LeeW, YueP, ZhangZ (2009) Analytical methods for inferring functional effects of single base pair substitutions in human cancers. Hum Genet 126: 481–498.

4. SimNL, KumarP, HuJ, HenikoffS, SchneiderG, et al. (2012) SIFT web server: predicting effects of amino acid substitutions on proteins. Nucleic Acids Res 40: W452–457.

5. HicksS, WheelerDA, PlonSE, KimmelM (2011) Prediction of missense mutation functionality depends on both the algorithm and sequence alignment employed. Hum Mutat 32: 661–668.

6. CooperGM, ShendureJ (2011) Needles in stacks of needles: finding disease-causal variants in a wealth of genomic data. Nat Rev Genet 12: 628–640.

7. EVS. Exome Variant Server, NHLBI GO Exome Sequencing Project (ESP). Seattle, WA, accessed 3rd August 2012.

8. OMIM (2012) Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM. Baltimore, MD: McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, John Hopkins University.

9. NealeBM, KouY, LiuL, Ma'ayanA, SamochaKE, et al. (2012) Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders. Nature 485: 242–245.

10. O'RoakBJ, VivesL, GirirajanS, KarakocE, KrummN, et al. (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations. Nature 485: 246–250.

11. SandersSJ, MurthaMT, GuptaAR, MurdochJD, RaubesonMJ, et al. (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism. Nature 485: 237–241.

12. de LigtJ, WillemsenMH, van BonBW, KleefstraT, YntemaHG, et al. (2012) Diagnostic exome sequencing in persons with severe intellectual disability. N Engl J Med 367: 1921–1929.

13. RauchA, WieczorekD, GrafE, WielandT, EndeleS, et al. (2012) Range of genetic mutations associated with severe non-syndromic sporadic intellectual disability: an exome sequencing study. Lancet 380: 1674–1682.

14. IossifovI, RonemusM, LevyD, WangZ, HakkerI, et al. (2012) De novo gene disruptions in children on the autistic spectrum. Neuron 74: 285–299.

15. Epi4K-Consortium (2013) De novo mutation in the classic epileptic encephalopathies. Nature [In Press].

16. TennessenJA, BighamAW, O'ConnorTD, FuW, KennyEE, et al. (2012) Evolution and functional impact of rare coding variation from deep sequencing of human exomes. Science 337: 64–69.

17. PruittKD, HarrowJ, HarteRA, WallinC, DiekhansM, et al. (2009) The consensus coding sequence (CCDS) project: Identifying a common protein-coding gene set for the human and mouse genomes. Genome Res 19: 1316–1323.

18. McKennaA, HannaM, BanksE, SivachenkoA, CibulskisK, et al. (2010) The Genome Analysis Toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res 20: 1297–1303.

19. HeinzenEL, SwobodaKJ, HitomiY, GurrieriF, NicoleS, et al. (2012) De novo mutations in ATP1A3 cause alternating hemiplegia of childhood. Nat Genet 44: 1030–1034.

20. EppigJT, BlakeJA, BultCJ, KadinJA, RichardsonJE, et al. (2012) The Mouse Genome Database (MGD): comprehensive resource for genetics and genomics of the laboratory mouse. Nucleic Acids Res 40: D881–886.

21. GeorgiB, VoightBF, BucanM (2013) From mouse to human: evolutionary genomics analysis of human orthologs of essential genes. PLoS Genet 9: e1003484.

22. GoldmanN, YangZ (1994) A codon-based model of nucleotide substitution for protein-coding DNA sequences. Mol Biol Evol 11: 725–736.

23. LiWH, WuCI, LuoCC (1985) A new method for estimating synonymous and nonsynonymous rates of nucleotide substitution considering the relative likelihood of nucleotide and codon changes. Mol Biol Evol 2: 150–174.

24. NeiM, GojoboriT (1986) Simple methods for estimating the numbers of synonymous and nonsynonymous nucleotide substitutions. Mol Biol Evol 3: 418–426.

25. ZhangC, WangJ, LongM, FanC (2013) gKaKs: the pipeline for genome-level Ka/Ks calculation. Bioinformatics 29: 645–646.

26. GohKI, CusickME, ValleD, ChildsB, VidalM, et al. (2007) The human disease network. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 8685–8690.

27. DeLongER, DeLongDM, Clarke-PearsonDL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44: 837–845.

28. RobinX, TurckN, HainardA, TibertiN, LisacekF, et al. (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 77.