From Mutations to Disease: Computational Analysis and Interpretation of GPCR-Associated Pathogenicity
Velloso, J. P. L.; de Sa, A. G. C.; Ascher, D. B.
Show abstract
G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) perform critical roles in numerous physiological processes and their mutations are, therefore, associated with various human diseases. Hence, understanding the molecular consequences of pathogenic mutations in GPCRs is essential for elucidating disease mechanisms and developing effective therapeutic strategies. In this study, we employed computational approaches to explore the impact of mutations on GPCRs using two distinct datasets: ClinVar and MutHTP. We first evaluated the performance of available pathogenicity predictors. Beyond that, we used statistical analysis to identify key characteristics of mutations in GPCRs leading to diseases. We first evaluated available computational predictors, such as SIFT, PolyPhen-2, PROVEAN, ESM1b, and AlphaMissense in classifying GPCR mutations. During this task, we observed that all predictors performed with reliability when assessing GPCR mutations leading to diseases in the ClinVar dataset. On the other hand, when dealing with the MutHTP dataset, all predictors demonstrated poor performance, emphasising the importance of dataset characteristics and the need for comprehensive evaluation when selecting mutation predictive tools for GPCR analysis. The statistical analysis of mutations on GPCRs and disease development suggests that mutations occurring in conserved regions or regions with stronger intermolecular interactions are more likely to disrupt protein function and contribute to disease pathogenesis. Additionally, regarding our analysis, we also obtained insights into the importance of hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding patterns in mutations in GPCRs and pathogenicity. Overall, our study enhances our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying GPCR-associated diseases and provides valuable insights for future research and clinical diagnostics in this field.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- MutaFrame - an interpretative visualization framework for deleteriousness prediction of missense variants in the human exome 94%
- E-SNPs&GO: Embedding of protein sequence and function improves the annotation of pathogenic variants. 93%
- 3Cnet: Pathogenicity prediction of human variants using knowledge transfer with deep recurrent neural networks 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- DisPhaseDB, an integrative database of diseases related variations in liquid-liquid phase separation proteins 94%
- Getting to know each other: PPIMem, a novel approach for predicting transmembrane protein-protein complexes 93%
- Modeling and analysis of site-specific mutations in cancer identifies known plus putative novel hotspots and bias due to contextual sequences 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- LYRUS: A Machine Learning Model for Predicting the Pathogenicity of Missense Variants 93%
- Improving classification of correct and incorrect protein-protein docking models by augmenting the training set 92%
- Mining drug-target interactions from biomedical literature using chemical and gene descriptions-based ensemble transformer model. 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cancer SIGVAR: A semi-automated interpretation tool for germline variants of hereditary cancer-related genes 93%
- REVEL is better at predicting pathogenicity of loss-of-function than gain-of-function variants 92%
- Spectrum of pathogenic variants and multiple founder effects in amelogenesis imperfecta associated with MMP20 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Pan-cancer in silico analysis of somatic mutations in G-protein coupled receptors: The effect of evolutionary conservation and natural variance 94%
- Novel ratio-metric features enable the identification of new driver genes across cancer types 93%
- Predicting human and viral protein variants affecting COVID-19 susceptibility and repurposing therapeutics 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.