Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Cancer-Critical Genes I: Proto-oncogenes

Cancer-Critical Genes I: Proto-oncogenes

Genes usually encode proteins necessary for the proper functioning of a healthy cell. Mutations can often cause changes to the gene expression pattern, thereby altering the phenotype.
When the function of certain critical genes, especially those involved in cell cycle regulation and cell growth signaling cascades, gets disrupted, it upsets the cell cycle progression. Such cells with unchecked cell cycles start proliferating uncontrollably and eventually develop into tumors.
Such genes that act...

Cancer-Critical Genes II: Tumor Suppressor Genes

Cancer-Critical Genes II: Tumor Suppressor Genes

Genes usually encode proteins necessary for the proper functioning of a healthy cell. Mutations can often cause changes to the gene expression pattern, thereby altering the phenotype.
When the function of certain critical genes, especially those involved in cell cycle regulation and cell growth signaling cascades, gets disrupted, it upsets the cell cycle progression. Such cells with unchecked cell cycles start proliferating uncontrollably and eventually develop into tumors.
Such genes that act...

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity

Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity refer to the ability of drugs to cause genetic defects and induce cancer, respectively. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies agents into four groups based on their carcinogenic potential. Group 1 agents are known human carcinogens; group 2A agents are probably carcinogenic to humans; group 3 agents lack data to support their role in carcinogenesis; and group 4 includes agents for which data support that they are not likely to be...

Cancer Survival Analysis

Cancer Survival Analysis

Cancer survival analysis focuses on quantifying and interpreting the time from a key starting point, such as diagnosis or the initiation of treatment, to a specific endpoint, such as remission or death. This analysis provides critical insights into treatment effectiveness and factors that influence patient outcomes, helping to shape clinical decisions and guide prognostic evaluations. A cornerstone of oncology research, survival analysis tackles the challenges of skewed, non-normally...

Mouse Models of Cancer Study

Mouse Models of Cancer Study

Mice have long served as models for studying human biology and pathology because of their phylogenetic and physiological similarity with humans. They are also easy to maintain and breed in the laboratory, and hence, many inbred strains are now available for research. Studies on mice have contributed immeasurably to our understanding of cancer biology.
The development of transgenic, knockout, and knock-in mice has led to an exponential increase in their use as model organisms in research,...

Cancer Prevention

Cancer Prevention

Several factors can increase the risk of cancer in an individual. About 50% of cancer cases can be prevented by adopting a healthy lifestyle, regular exercise, eating healthy, and following a modest cancer prevention diet. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown that populations with vegetable and fruit-rich diets have reduced the incidence of cancer. On the other hand, populations who have a diet rich in animal fat, red meat, junk food, or high calories are predisposed to cancer.
Some...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Integrating evidence from protein domains to identify cancer driver mutations.

Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society·2026

Same author

Cancer histone mutations impact protein binding and DNA repair with possible links to genomic instability.

Nucleic acids research·2025

Same author

Strategic engineering of CoS<sub>2</sub>/ZnIn<sub>2</sub>S<sub>4</sub> heterostructures incorporating Ar plasma-induced sulfur vacancies for potentiating electrocatalytic activity in furazolidone determination.

The Analyst·2025

Same author

Mechanism of improved cellulase production by Trichoderma reesei in water-supply solid-state fermentation.

Bioresource technology·2024

Same author

Timing of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor initiation and post-discharge outcomes in acute heart failure with diabetes: A population-based cohort study.

European journal of heart failure·2024

Same author

DNA polymerase ε and δ variants drive mutagenesis in polypurine tracts in human tumors.

Cell reports·2024

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 24, 2025

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation

Published on: January 16, 2019

Are Next-Generation Pathogenicity Predictors Applicable to Cancer?

Daria Ostroverkhova¹, Yiru Sheng², Anna Panchenko³

¹Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, Queen's University, Canada.

Journal of Molecular Biology

|June 7, 2024

Summary

Next-generation pathogenicity predictors show promise for identifying cancer driver mutations but do not match cancer-specific tools. They struggle with mutations unique to specific cancer types.

Keywords:

AlphaMissense VARITY cancer mutation computational driver pathogenic mutation

More Related Videos

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

Published on: August 20, 2019

A Comparative Approach to Characterize the Landscape of Host-Pathogen Protein-Protein Interactions

A Comparative Approach to Characterize the Landscape of Host-Pathogen Protein-Protein Interactions

Published on: July 18, 2013

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 24, 2025

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation

Determining the Likelihood of Variant Pathogenicity Using Amino Acid-level Signal-to-Noise Analysis of Genetic Variation

Published on: January 16, 2019

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

In Vivo Functional Study of Disease-associated Rare Human Variants Using Drosophila

Published on: August 20, 2019

A Comparative Approach to Characterize the Landscape of Host-Pathogen Protein-Protein Interactions

A Comparative Approach to Characterize the Landscape of Host-Pathogen Protein-Protein Interactions

Published on: July 18, 2013

Area of Science:

Genomics
Bioinformatics
Cancer Research

Background:

Pathogenicity predictors, initially for genetic disorders, are now applied to cancer.
Their effectiveness in identifying cancer driver mutations is not fully established.
Cancer driver mutations are key to tumor development and progression.

Purpose of the Study:

To assess the performance of next-generation pathogenicity predictors in detecting cancer driver mutations.
To compare these general predictors against cancer-specific methods using an experimental benchmark.
To identify limitations of current predictors for cancer mutation analysis.

Main Methods:

Utilized a comprehensive experimental benchmark dataset of cancer driver and neutral mutations.
Evaluated state-of-the-art pathogenicity predictors, including AlphaMissense and VARITY.
Ensured no data leakage from human-curated training and test sets.

Main Results:

AlphaMissense and VARITY demonstrated commendable performance in identifying cancer driver mutations.
These general predictors generally underperformed compared to cancer-specific methods.
The predictors' inability to detect cancer-type-specific driver mutations was a significant limitation.

Conclusions:

Next-generation pathogenicity predictors have potential utility in cancer genomics.
Current general predictors are not a complete substitute for cancer-specific analytical tools.
Further development is needed to enhance the detection of cancer-specific driver mutations.