Assessing predictions on fitness effects of missense variants in HMBS in CAGI6

Jing Zhang,Lisa Kinch,Panagiotis Katsonis,Olivier Lichtarge,Milind Jagota,Yun S Song,Yuanfei Sun,Yang Shen,Nurdan Kuru,Onur Dereli,Ogun Adebali,Muttaqi Ahmad Alladin,Debnath Pal,Emidio Capriotti,Maria Paola Turina,Castrense Savojardo,Pier Luigi Martelli,Giulia Babbi,Rita Casadio,Fabrizio Pucci,Marianne Rooman,Gabriel Cia,Matsvei Tsishyn,Alexey Strokach,Zhiqiang Hu,Warren van Loggerenberg,Frederick P Roth,Predrag Radivojac,Steven E Brenner,Qian Cong,Nick V Grishin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-024-02680-3
2024-08-07
Abstract:This paper presents an evaluation of predictions submitted for the "HMBS" challenge, a component of the sixth round of the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation held in 2021. The challenge required participants to predict the effects of missense variants of the human HMBS gene on yeast growth. The HMBS enzyme, critical for the biosynthesis of heme in eukaryotic cells, is highly conserved among eukaryotes. Despite the application of a variety of algorithms and methods, the performance of predictors was relatively similar, with Kendall's tau correlation coefficients between predictions and experimental scores around 0.3 for a majority of submissions. Notably, the median correlation (≥ 0.34) observed among these predictors, especially the top predictions from different groups, was greater than the correlation observed between their predictions and the actual experimental results. Most predictors were moderately successful in distinguishing between deleterious and benign variants, as evidenced by an area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of approximately 0.7 respectively. Compared with the recent two rounds of CAGI competitions, we noticed more predictors outperformed the baseline predictor, which is solely based on the amino acid frequencies. Nevertheless, the overall accuracy of predictions is still far short of positive control, which is derived from experimental scores, indicating the necessity for considerable improvements in the field. The most inaccurately predicted variants in this round were associated with the insertion loop, which is absent in many orthologs, suggesting the predictors still heavily rely on the information from multiple sequence alignment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?