Performance Comparison of Computational Prediction Methods for the Function and Pathogenicity of Non-coding Variants
Zheng WangiD, Guihu ZhaoiD, Bin LiiD, Zhenghuan FangiD, Qian CheniD, Xiaomeng WangiD, Tengfei LuoiD, Yijing WangiD, Qiao ZhouiD, Kuokuo LiiD, Lu XiaiD, Yi ZhangiD, Xun Clare ZhouiD, Hongxu PaniD, Yuwen ZhaoiD, Yige WangiD, Lin WangiD, Jifeng GuoiD, Beisha TangiD, Kun XiaiD, Jinchen LiiD
Abstract
Non-coding variants in the human genome greatly influence some traits and complex diseases by their own regulation and modification effects. Hence, an increasing number of computational methods are developed to predict the effects of variants in the human non-coding sequences. However, it is difficult for users with insufficient knowledge about the performances of computational methods to select appropriate computational methods from dozens of methods. In order to solve this problem, we assessed 12 performance measures of 24 methods on four independent non-coding variant benchmark datasets: (I) rare germline variant from ClinVar, (II) rare somatic variant from COSMIC, (III) common regulatory variant dataset, and (IV) disease associated common variant dataset. All 24 tested methods performed differently under various conditions, indicating that these methods have varying strengths and weaknesses under different scenarios. Importantly, the performance of existing methods was acceptable in the rare germline variant from ClinVar with area under curves (AUCs) of 0.4481 - 0.8033 and poor in the rare somatic variant from COSMIC (AUCs: 0.4984 - 0.7131), common regulatory variant dataset (AUCs: 0.4837 - 0.6472), and disease associated common variant dataset (AUCs: 0.4766 -0.5188). We also compared the prediction performance among 24 methods for non-coding de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorder and found that the CADD and CDTS methods showed better performance. Summarily, we assessed the performances of 24 computational methods under diverse scenarios, providing preliminary advice for proper tool selection and new method development in interpreting non-coding variants.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 26
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Field percentile
- top 7%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Clinical prediction of pathogenic variants in non-coding regions of the human genome.
Ben Omega Petrazzini, Fernando López-Bello, … Lucía Spangenberg·medRxiv·Feb 25, 2022
- WEVar: a novel statistical learning framework for predicting noncoding regulatory variants
Ye Wang, Yuchao Jiang, … Li Chen·Briefings in BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Apr 23, 2021
- Scoring of pathogenic non-coding variants in Mendelian diseases through supervised learning on ancient, recent and ongoing purifying selection signals in human
Barthélémy Caron, Yufei Luo, Antonio Rausell·Genome biologyPeer-reviewed·Feb 11, 2019
- Identifying non-coding variant effects at scale via machine learning models of cis-regulatory reporter assays
John C. Butts, Stephen Rong, … Steven K. Reilly·bioRxiv·Apr 16, 2025
- Whole genome base-wise aggregation and functional prediction for human non-coding regulatory variants
Shijie Zhang, Yukun He, … Mulin Jun Li·Nucleic Acids ResearchPeer-reviewed·Aug 29, 2019
- Fast, scalable prediction of deleterious noncoding variants from functional and population genomic data
Yi-Fei Huang, Brad Gulko, Adam Siepel·bioRxiv·Aug 15, 2016