Back

Leveraging cancer mutation data to predict the pathogenicity of germline missense variants

Haque, B.; Cheerie, D.; Pan, A.; Curtis, M.; Nalpathamkalam, T.; Nguyen, J.; Salhab, C.; Thiruvahindrapura, B.; Zhang, J.; Couse, M.; Hartley, T.; Morrow, M. M.; Price, E. M.; Walker, S.; Malkin, D.; Roth, F. P.; Costain, G.

2024-03-13 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.03.11.24304106 medRxiv
Show abstract

Innovative and easy-to-implement strategies are needed to improve the pathogenicity assessment of rare germline missense variants. Somatic cancer driver mutations identified through large-scale tumor sequencing studies often impact genes that are also associated with rare Mendelian disorders. The use of cancer mutation data to aid in the interpretation of germline missense variants, regardless of whether the gene is associated with a hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome or a non-cancer-related developmental disorder, has not been systematically assessed. We extracted putative cancer driver missense mutations from the Cancer Hotspots database and annotated them as germline variants, including presence/absence and classification in ClinVar. We trained two supervised learning models (logistic regression and random forest) to predict variant classifications of germline missense variants in ClinVar using Cancer Hotspot data (training dataset). The performance of each model was evaluated with an independent test dataset generated in part from searching public and private genome-wide sequencing datasets from [~]1.5 million individuals. Of the 2,447 cancer mutations, 691 corresponding germline variants had been previously classified in ClinVar: 426 (61.6%) as likely pathogenic/pathogenic, 261 (37.8%) as uncertain significance, and 4 (0.6%) as likely benign/benign. The odds ratio for a likely pathogenic/pathogenic classification in ClinVar was 28.3 (95% confidence interval: 24.2-33.1, p < 0.001), compared with all other germline missense variants in the same 216 genes. Both supervised learning models showed high correlation with pathogenicity assessments in the training dataset. There was high area under precision-recall curve values of 0.847 and 0.829 for logistic regression and random forest models, respectively, when applied to the test dataset. With the use of cancer and germline datasets and supervised learning techniques, our study shows that cancer mutation data can be leveraged to improve the interpretation of germline missense variation potentially causing rare Mendelian disorders. AUTHOR SUMMARYOur study introduces an approach to improve the interpretation of rare genetic variation, specifically missense variants that can alter proteins and cause disease. We found that published evidence from somatic cancer sequencing studies may be relevant to understanding the impact of the same variant in the context of rare inherited (Mendelian) disorders. By using widely available datasets, we noted that many cancer driver mutations have also been observed as rare germline variants associated with inherited disorders. This intersection led us to employ machine learning techniques to assess how cancer mutation data can predict the pathogenicity of germline variants. We trained machine learning models and tested them on a separate dataset curated by searching public and private genome-wide sequencing data from over a million participants. Our models were able to successfully identify pathogenic genetic changes, demonstrating strong performance in predicting disease-causing variants. This study highlights that cancer mutation data can enhance the interpretation of rare missense variants, aiding in the diagnosis and understanding of rare diseases. Integrating this approach into current genetic classification frameworks could be beneficial, and opens new avenues for leveraging existing cancer research to benefit broader genetic research and diagnostics for rare genetic conditions.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
37.5%
2
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.4%
3
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
4
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.9%
6
Human Genetics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
7
BMC Medical Genomics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
8
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.1%
9
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
10
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
11
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
14
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.3%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 20%
1.2%
17
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
18
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
19
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
20
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
BioData Mining
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Human Genomics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
Gigabyte
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
24
Database
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
26
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%