↓ Skip to main content

In Silico profiling of deleterious amino acid substitutions of potential pathological importance in haemophlia A and haemophlia B

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Science, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In Silico profiling of deleterious amino acid substitutions of potential pathological importance in haemophlia A and haemophlia B
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Science, March 2012
DOI 10.1186/1423-0127-19-30
Pubmed ID
Authors

George Priya Doss C

Abstract

In this study, instead of current biochemical methods, the effects of deleterious amino acid substitutions in F8 and F9 gene upon protein structure and function were assayed by means of computational methods and information from the databases. Deleterious substitutions of F8 and F9 are responsible for Haemophilia A and Haemophilia B which is the most common genetic disease of coagulation disorders in blood. Yet, distinguishing deleterious variants of F8 and F9 from the massive amount of nonfunctional variants that occur within a single genome is a significant challenge. We performed an in silico analysis of deleterious mutations and their protein structure changes in order to analyze the correlation between mutation and disease. Deleterious nsSNPs were categorized based on empirical based and support vector machine based methods to predict the impact on protein functions. Furthermore, we modeled mutant proteins and compared them with the native protein for analysis of protein structure stability. Out of 510 nsSNPs in F8, 378 nsSNPs (74%) were predicted to be 'intolerant' by SIFT, 371 nsSNPs (73%) were predicted to be 'damaging' by PolyPhen and 445 nsSNPs (87%) as 'less stable' by I-Mutant2.0. In F9, 129 nsSNPs (78%) were predicted to be intolerant by SIFT, 131 nsSNPs (79%) were predicted to be damaging by PolyPhen and 150 nsSNPs (90%) as less stable by I-Mutant2.0. Overall, we found that I-Mutant which emphasizes support vector machine based method outperformed SIFT and PolyPhen in prediction of deleterious nsSNPs in both F8 and F9. The models built in this work would be appropriate for predicting the deleterious amino acid substitutions and their functions in gene regulation which would be useful for further genotype-phenotype researches as well as the pharmacogenetics studies. These in silico tools, despite being helpful in providing information about the nature of mutations, may also function as a first-pass filter to determine the substitutions worth pursuing for further experimental research in other coagulation disorder causing genes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 3%
India 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 31 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 15%
Professor 2 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 3 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 August 2013.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Science
#353
of 1,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,287
of 170,510 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Science
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,510 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.