4.6 Article

Path to Facilitate the Prediction of Functional Amino Acid Substitutions in Red Blood Cell Disorders - A Computational Approach

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0024607

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A major area of effort in current genomics is to distinguish mutations that are functionally neutral from those that contribute to disease. Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) are amino acid substitutions that currently account for approximately half of the known gene lesions responsible for human inherited diseases. As a result, the prediction of non-synonymous SNPs (nsSNPs) that affect protein functions and relate to disease is an important task. Principal Findings: In this study, we performed a comprehensive analysis of deleterious SNPs at both functional and structural level in the respective genes associated with red blood cell metabolism disorders using bioinformatics tools. We analyzed the variants in Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) and isoforms of Pyruvate Kinase (PKLR & PKM2) genes responsible for major red blood cell disorders. Deleterious nsSNPs were categorized based on empirical rule 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 evaluation of protein structure stability. Significance: We argue here that bioinformatics tools can play an important role in addressing the complexity of the underlying genetic basis of Red Blood Cell disorders. Based on our investigation, we report here the potential candidate SNPs, for future studies in human Red Blood Cell disorders. Current study also demonstrates the presence of other deleterious mutations and also endorses with in vivo experimental studies. Our approach will present the application of computational tools in understanding functional variation from the perspective of structure, expression, evolution and phenotype.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据