AnnotateMissense: a genome-wide annotation and benchmarking framework for missense pathogenicity prediction
Muneeb, M.; Ascher, D. B.
Show abstract
MotivationMissense variant interpretation remains challenging because pathogenicity depends on heterogeneous evidence, including population frequency, evolutionary conservation, transcript context, amino acid substitution severity, prior pathogenicity predictors and protein-language-model-derived features. Although these resources are individually useful, there remains a need for reproducible workflows that integrate them at genome-wide scale, benchmark their contribution and provide accessible outputs for downstream research. ResultsWe present AnnotateMissense, a scalable annotation, benchmarking and genome-wide prediction framework for missense variant interpretation. AnnotateMissense integrates chromosome-wise hg38 missense variants derived from dbNSFP v5.1 with ANNOVAR-based gene-, region- and filter-based annotations, dbNSFP transcript and protein descriptors, AlphaMissense scores, ESM-derived features, conservation metrics, population-frequency variables, established pathogenicity predictors and engineered amino acid/codon-context features. Using 132,714 ClinVar-labelled missense variants, we benchmarked machine-learning and deep-learning models under controlled feature configurations. The full 303-feature benchmark set achieved the strongest performance with XGBoost, reaching mean Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) = 0.9411 and ROC-AUC = 0.9950 across stratified five-fold cross-validation. Restricted naive and location-oriented feature sets achieved substantially lower best MCC values of 0.4989 and 0.5113, respectively. Circularity-controlled ablations showed that removing prior-predictor, population-frequency and clinically overlapping evidence reduced performance, whereas excluding AlphaMissense and ESM-derived features alone had minimal effect. Temporal ClinVar validation on newly observed pathogenic/benign variants achieved MCC = 0.7613, accuracy = 0.8798 and F1-score = 0.8750. The final genome-wide model was applied to 90,643,830 hg38 missense variants to generate AnnotateMissense pathogenicity scores and binary prediction labels. Availability and implementationSource code, workflow scripts and command files are available at https://github.com/MuhammadMuneeb007/CAGI7_Annotate_All_Missense. Genome-wide prediction outputs and the compressed DuckDB database are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19981867. Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available online.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Informing Variant Assessment using Structured Evidence from Prior Classifications (PS1, PM5, and PVS1 Sequence Variant Interpretation Criteria) 95%
- AVADA Enables Automated Genetic Variant Curation Directly from the Full Text Literature 94%
- Genome Alert!: a standardized procedure for genomic variant reinterpretation and automated genotype-phenotype reassessment in clinical routine 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- GenOtoScope: Towards automating ACMG classification of variants associated with congenital hearing loss 93%
- SVCurator: A Crowdsourcing app to visualize evidence of structural variants for the human genome 93%
- Efficient and Flexible Integration of Variant Characteristics in Rare Variant Association Studies Using Integrated Nested Laplace Approximation 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-based calibration of computational tools for missense variant pathogenicity classification and ClinGen recommendations for clinical use of PP3/BP4 criteria 97%
- Evidence-based recommendations for gene-specific ACMG/AMP variant classification from the ClinGen ENIGMA BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variant Curation Expert Panel 95%
- Availability of benign missense variant “truthsets” for validation of functional assays: current status and a novel systematic approach 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.