
==== Front
PeerJ
PeerJ
peerj
PeerJ
2167-8359
PeerJ Inc. San Diego, USA

17991
10.7717/peerj.17991
Bioinformatics
Data Mining and Machine Learning
CDMPred: a tool for predicting cancer driver missense mutations with high-quality passenger mutations
Wang Lihua 12
Sun Haiyang 3
Yue Zhenyu 4
Xia Junfeng 1
Li Xiaoyan lixiaoyan@ahu.edu.cn
1
1 Information Materials and Intelligent Sensing Laboratory of Anhui Province, Institutes of Physical Science and Information Technology, Anhui University, Hefei, Anhui, China
2 School of Information Engineering, Huangshan University, Huangshan, Anhui, China
3 State Key Laboratory of Medicinal Chemical Biology, NanKai University, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
4 School of Information and Artificial Intelligence, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, Anhui, China
Sotelo-Mundo Rogerio
6 9 2024
2024
12 e1799110 4 2024
7 8 2024
©2024 Wang et al.
2024
Wang et al.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.

Most computational methods for predicting driver mutations have been trained using positive samples, while negative samples are typically derived from statistical methods or putative samples. The representativeness of these negative samples in capturing the diversity of passenger mutations remains to be determined. To tackle these issues, we curated a balanced dataset comprising driver mutations sourced from the COSMIC database and high-quality passenger mutations obtained from the Cancer Passenger Mutation database. Subsequently, we encoded the distinctive features of these mutations. Utilizing feature correlation analysis, we developed a cancer driver missense mutation predictor called CDMPred employing feature selection through the ensemble learning technique XGBoost. The proposed CDMPred method, utilizing the top 10 features and XGBoost, achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) value of 0.83 and 0.80 on the training and independent test sets, respectively. Furthermore, CDMPred demonstrated superior performance compared to existing state-of-the-art methods for cancer-specific and general diseases, as measured by AUC and area under the precision-recall curve. Including high-quality passenger mutations in the training data proves advantageous for CDMPred’s prediction performance. We anticipate that CDMPred will be a valuable tool for predicting cancer driver mutations, furthering our understanding of personalized therapy.

Cancer
Machine learning
Driver missense mutation prediction
Benchmark quality
XGBoost
the National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaU22A2038 82101611 32271283 62102004 The Natural Science Foundation of the Anhui Higher Education Institutions of China2023AH051392 This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U22A2038, 82101611, 32271283, and 62102004) and the Natural Science Foundation of the Anhui Higher Education Institutions of China (2023AH051392). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Cancer is a leading cause of death and suffering in humans worldwide, resulting in nearly 20 million new cases alongside 9.7 million deaths in 2022 (Bray et al., 2024). Researchers have confirmed that cancer is a multifaceted genetic disease caused by the accumulation of numerous mutations in the genome (Wood et al., 2007; Tomasetti et al., 2015; Xi et al., 2020). However, the tumorigenesis and development of most cancers are primarily driven by a small number of critical mutations (Hanahan & Weinberg, 2011; Muiños et al., 2021; Ostroverkhova, Przytycka & Panchenko, 2023), while the remaining mutations are considered neutral (passengers). Identifying driver mutations from passenger mutations holds significant importance, as drivers are commonly utilized as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers and potential drug targets for cancer treatment (Xi et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2024).

 Vogelstein et al. (2013) observed that most protein-coding mutations in cancer genomes were missense changes. Consequently, our focus in this study is on cancer driver missense mutations. To date, numerous computational methods have been developed to predict driver missense mutations, such as boostDM (Muiños et al., 2021), Cancer-specific High-throughput Annotation of Somatic Mutations (CHASM) (Carter et al., 2009), Transformed Functional Impact score for Cancer (transFIC) (Gonzalez-Perez, Deu-Pons & Lopez-Bigas, 2012), Cancer Driver Annotation (CanDrA) (Mao et al., 2013), Functional Analysis through Hidden Markov Models (FATHMM) (Shihab et al., 2013), CScape-somatic (Rogers, Gaunt & Campbell, 2020), and CHASMplus (Tokheim & Karchin, 2019). Additionally, some methods are focused on identifying driver mutations at critical sites, such as protein allosteric sites (Song et al., 2019; Song et al., 2023; Shen et al., 2017). These methods typically utilize positive samples obtained from cancer-related databases, such as the Catalogue of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) database (Carter et al., 2009; Gonzalez-Perez, Deu-Pons & Lopez-Bigas, 2012; Mao et al., 2013; Shihab et al., 2013; Rogers, Gaunt & Campbell, 2020), while negative samples are commonly derived from statistical methods (Muiños et al., 2021; Carter et al., 2009) or putative samples (Gonzalez-Perez, Deu-Pons & Lopez-Bigas, 2012; Mao et al., 2013; Shihab et al., 2013; Rogers, Gaunt & Campbell, 2020; Tokheim & Karchin, 2019).

This study evaluated the potential for improved driver prediction by investigating high-quality passenger mutations. We then proposed a predictor, CDMPred, which incorporates high-quality passenger mutations and utilizes the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) algorithm. Initially, we conducted comparative analyses of the Cancer Passenger Mutations database (dbCPM), which comprises highly curated passenger mutations (Yue, Zhao & Xia, 2020). The results indicated that the dbCPM data aligns with other negative datasets regarding most classical features, while exhibiting specificity for cancer-related features (Yue, Zhao & Xia, 2020; Wong et al., 2011). Subsequently, we employed the high-quality passenger mutation data for model training and encoded 65 features. We used feature importance to identify the top 10 features from the 65 features mentioned above and evaluated the performance of various machine learning algorithms on the training set. Ultimately, we employed the optimal model (CDMPred) with an XGBoost classifier and the top 10 features. The results obtained from the training and independent test sets demonstrated that CDMPred exhibited superior performance compared to several state-of-the-art methods for both cancer-specific and general diseases, as assessed by two threshold-independent metrics: the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the area under the precision–recall curve (AUPR).

Materials & Methods

Figure 1 presents the flowchart of the CDMPred method. Portions of this text were previously published as part of a preprint (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1350438/v1). The procedure consists of four steps: dataset preparation, feature representation, model construction, and performance evaluation. Each step is explained in detail below.

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-1 Figure 1 Flowchart of the proposed method.

Dataset preparation

The datasets were divided into two groups: one for feature analysis and the other for model construction and performance evaluation. One cancer driver mutation dataset and three passenger mutation datasets were used for feature analysis. For positive samples, we selected 1,248 driver missense mutations from the Database of Curated Mutations (DoCM) (v3.2) (Ainscough et al., 2016), which is a reliable source that aggregates functionally validated mutations in cancer. For negative samples, we gathered three passenger datasets. The dataset dbCPM (v1.1) consists of 1,919 passenger mutations, including 1,634 distinct missense mutations (Yue, Zhao & Xia, 2020). The other two datasets are oriented from classic prediction tools for cancer-specific driver mutations. Expressly, the dataset FATHMM was initially obtained from the UniProt database, which was taken as negative samples in the FATHMM training set (Shihab et al., 2013; Apweiler et al., 2004), and the dataset CHASM (v3.1) consists of synthetic passenger mutations in the CHASM training set (Carter et al., 2009). We removed the mutations simultaneously in DoCM in each passenger mutation dataset. The details are presented in Table S1.

The datasets utilized for model construction are described as follows. Out of the 1,634 missense passenger mutations in dbCPM v1.1, 1,104 items from dbCPM v1.0 were used as negative samples in our training set. We filtered the 13,235 positive samples in the CHASM (v3.1) training set to avoid overlap with samples from dbCPM v1.0. Next, we included only positive samples within 50 bp of a passenger mutation on the same transcript to address the imbalance and potential bias towards positive samples. As a result, our training set retained 2,151 driver missense mutations. We obtained an independent test set to benchmark performance against state-of-the-art prediction tools. First, we collected missense mutations in dbCPM v1.1 reported after the initial database update (dbCPM v1.0) to serve as negative samples. Secondly, we considered all 1,248 driver mutations in DoCM as our positive samples. To prevent type 1 circularity (Grimm et al., 2015), which can cause overfitting from overlapping training and evaluation datasets, we excluded overlapping data with the training set, resulting in 567 driver mutations. The datasets utilized for model construction and performance evaluation are detailed in Table 1.

10.7717/peerj.17991/table-1 Table 1 Summary of mutation datasets used for model construction and evaluation.

	Training set	Independent test set	
	Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative	
Source	CHASM v3.1	dbCPM v1.0	DoCM v3.2 nonoverlap	dbCPM v1.1 nonoverlap	
Number	2151	1104	567	530	
Notes.

DoCM v3.2 nonoverlap, data in DoCM v3.2 but not in CHASM v3.1; dbCPM v1.1 nonoverlap, data in dbCPM v1.1 except for dbCPM v1.0.

Feature representation

Considering both the significance of the protein’s functions and conservation, seven feature groups were provided to capture the specific characteristics of cancer driver mutations, comprising protein physicochemical properties, evolutionary conservation scores, exon features, protein local structures, regional composition, amino acid residue triplet features, and UniProt annotations. For each missense mutation in the datasets mentioned above, the features were encoded with the 85 pre-computed features available in SNVBox (Wong et al., 2011; Won et al., 2021) from a dockerized tool, the Cancer-Related Analysis of Variants Toolkit (Masica et al., 2017) (CRAVAT, version 5.2.3). To prepare the input data, we curated the transcript information using Ensembl GRCh37 (Flicek et al., 2014) as a reference. Each feature underwent scaling by subtracting the mean value and dividing it by the root mean square (RMS) value, utilizing pre-computed values for the entire genome. After CHASM (Shen et al., 2017; Yue, Zhao & Xia, 2020), we applied the information gain method to remove irrelevant features among the 85 candidate features. By using a uniform threshold, we selected 65 predictive features that possessed a minimum of 0.001 bits of mutual information Specifically, 13 out of 16 protein physicochemical properties, all six evolutionary conservation score features, all three exon features, 11 out of 12 protein local structure features, six out of 11 regional composition features, and 26 out of 28 UniProt annotations were included. The amino acid residue trimer features were also excluded. A detailed list is indicated in Table S2.

Model construction

We utilized feature importance with XGBoost to select an optimal subset of features. Subsequently, we comprehensively evaluated multiple algorithms on the training set using a 10-fold cross-validation (Buske et al., 2013). We selected eight classifiers, namely random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), multilayer perceptron (MLP), gradient boosting decision tree (GBDT), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), logistic regression (LR), naïve Bayes (NB), and XGBoost (Chen & Guestrin, 2016). All the algorithms mentioned above were implemented using scikit-learn (v0.22.2) and Python 3.7. The classifiers were implemented with parameters optimized through grid search, utilizing the 10-fold cross-validation results of the training set. Specifically, we optimized three critical parameters in XGBoost: the boosting learning rate (learning_rate), the maximum depth of the tree (max_depth), and the subsample ratio of columns when constructing each tree (colsample_bytree).

Performance evaluation

As quantitative measurements of prediction results, we employed two threshold-independent measures: AUC and AUPR (Carter et al., 2009; Dong et al., 2015). Additionally, we used two qualitative measures, namely sensitivity (or true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate), for model performance analysis, as previously described in research (Cheng et al., 2020; Zeng et al., 2018). These measures are defined as follows:

Sensitivity=TPTP+FN

Specificity=TNTN+FP

where TP (true positive) means the number of correctly predicted cancer driver mutations, FP (false positive) represents the number of passenger mutations predicted as drivers, TN (true negative) represents the number of correctly predicted passenger mutations, and FN (false negative) indicates the number of cancer driver mutations predicted as passengers.

The permutation test was conducted on CDMPred to demonstrate that the model learned more than noise. Specifically, we first trained the CDMPred model on the data and saved the AUC value of 10-fold cross-validation. Secondly, we randomly permuted the class labels in the dataset and trained a new model called “CDMPred_random”. Thirdly, we assessed the performance of “CDMPred_random” regarding AUC. We repeated the second and the third steps 1,000 times. Finally, we calculated the empirical p-value by comparing the distribution of the 1,000 values to the corresponding value from the original CDMPred. The permutation test algorithm was implemented with the function named permutation_test_score in scikit-learn.

Results

Analysis of features between different datasets

We quantified 85 features for all datasets presented in Table S1, which comprehensively represents the biological impacts of the mutation in the human genome (Wong et al., 2011). We statistically analyzed the dbCPM samples using these features in the nonparametric Wilcoxon signed rank hypothesis test. Figure 2A displays the significant features (p < 0.05) of positive samples obtained from DoCM, dbCPM, and other negative samples. Figure 2B illustrates the significant features among all negative samples. Our findings indicate that dbCPM data closely resemble other negative samples in terms of most classical features, including ‘ExonConservation’ (conservation score for the entire exon calculated from the phylogenetic alignment of 46 species) and ‘PredBFactorS’ (probability that the residue backbone of wild type is stiff) (Kent et al., 2002; Katzman et al., 2008). Subsequently, we identified three features based on their p-values, and the RMS score distribution of all samples is presented in Fig. 2C. Therefore, the mutations in dbCPM were utilized as qualified negative samples for predicting disease-causing mutations. dbCPM exhibited distinguishable characteristics in cancer-specific features compared to other negative samples, including ‘UniprotMETAL’ (a binding site for a metal ion) and ‘UniprotREP’ (positions of repeated sequence motifs or domains) (Ribeiro et al., 2004; Xu et al., 2016). Figure 2D illustrates the distribution of RMS scores for the UniprotMETAL feature across all samples. These findings further support that dbCPM mutations are more representative than other negative samples in modeling a wide range of passenger mutations and are better suited for predicting cancer driver mutations.

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-2 Figure 2 Statistical analysis of samples.

(A) Overlap of features showing significant differences between negative and gold standard positive samples. (B) Overlap of features showing significant differences between negative samples. (C) RMS score distribution of all samples for three classical features. (D) RMS score distribution of all samples for the UniprotMETAL feature.

Explorations for an optimal model

Figure 3 displays the AUC values of the training set for the eight classifiers. XGBoost outperformed all other classifiers, achieving an AUC value of 0.82. XGBoost was applied with three optimized parameters: learning_rate = 0.04, max_depth = 4, and colsample_bytree = 0.2.

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-3 Figure 3 ROC curves of several machine learning methods with parameters tuned on the training set to obtain an optimal model.

To explore the possibility of further refining the features selected from mutual information, we examined the correlations among the 65 features. We identified several highly related features in UniProt, as highlighted in yellow in Fig. S1. Subsequently, we utilized the feature selection method with XGBoost (using default parameters) to determine the importance of the features. We employed sequential feature selection (SFS) and used the optimized parameters of XGBoost to train the data. Figure 4 illustrates the comparison of the AUC results for these features. The top 10 features (highlighted in bold in Table S2) achieved the highest mean AUC of 0.83 with 10-fold cross-validation. We conducted a performance comparison between the top 10 features and the absence of the top k (1 to 10) features using 10-fold cross-validation (Fig. 5). The results indicate that excluding features like ExonSnpDensity and ExonHapMapSnpDensity, which quantify the density of SNPs and HapMap-verified SNPs in exons, resulted in a notable 4.8% and 4.3% decline in prediction performance, respectively. Although classified as exon features in CRAVAT, these features also relate to evolutionary conservation—a factor significantly influencing cancer driver prediction performance (Ostroverkhova, Przytycka & Panchenko, 2023; Nourbakhsh et al., 2024; Rogers, Gaunt & Campbell, 2021).

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-4 Figure 4 Comparison of AUC values with top n (1–65) features predicted by XGBoost feature importance on the training set.

The optimal model was achieved with the top 10 features on the training set, including ‘UniprotDOM_PostModEnz’, ‘MGAPHC’, ‘UniprotCARBOHYD’, ‘UniprotREP’, ‘ExonSnpDensity’, ‘ExonConservation’, ‘UniprotMETAL’, ‘MGAEntropy’, ‘ExonHapMapSnpDensity’, ‘UniprotDOM_MMBRBD’.

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-5 Figure 5 Comparison of performance with the top 10 features and without the top k (one to 10) features by 10-fold cross-validation on the training set.

Additionally, the feature UniprotMETAL, which relates to the binding of metal ions at mutation sites, is crucial given the role of metal ions as protein cofactors in cellular processes linked to cancer development (Xu et al., 2016; Ge et al., 2022). Lastly, UniprotREP, which denotes genomic repetitive regions, is highlighted for its potential to induce genomic instability—a hallmark of cancer genomes, thereby strongly correlating with cancer occurrence (Criscione et al., 2014; Liao et al., 2023). Consequently, we chose XGBoost with the top 10 features and optimal parameters as the final CDMPred model.

Comparison with models trained on class labels using random permutation

To demonstrate that CDMPred acquired knowledge beyond random noise, we trained corresponding models of CDMPred_random. The mean values and standard deviations of AUC values on the training set with 10-fold cross-validation are shown in Table S3. The results illustrate an AUC value of 0.826 for the original CDMPred model. Nevertheless, the AUC value experienced a significant decrease upon random permutation of class labels for training the CDMPred_random model. Additionally, CDMPred exhibited statistical solid significance (with a p-value <0.001) compared to other models. The computational setup involved a system with 16 GB of memory, an Intel(R) Core (TM) i7-9700 CPU operating at 3.00 GHz with eight cores and running on a 64-bit Windows 10 system. The permutation test incurred a time cost of approximately 966 s.

Performance comparison with state-of-the-art predictors

To evaluate the performance of CDMPred on unseen samples, we assembled an independent test set. We utilized widely recognized tools designed explicitly for cancer-specific and general diseases, including CHASMplus, CHASM, CanDrA, FATHMM, TransFIC, and CScape-somatic. Additionally, we collected ten general disease predictors: SIFT (Kumar, Henikoff & Ng, 2009), Mutation Assessor (Reva, Antipin & Sander, 2011), PolyPhen-2 (Adzhubei et al., 2010), CADD (Kircher et al., 2014), MetaLR (Dong et al., 2015), MetaSVM (Dong et al., 2015), DANN (Quang, Chen & Xie, 2015), REVEL (Ioannidis et al., 2016), M-CAP (Jagadeesh et al., 2016), and MVP (Qi et al., 2021). For the cancer-specific methods, we submitted the test data to the respective websites of each tool to obtain the prediction results. As for the general disease predictors, we downloaded the dbNSFP4.1a software (https://sites.google.com/site/jpopgen/dbNSFP) and utilized a script written in Java to retrieve the prediction results from the database (Liu et al., 2020). All comparisons were conducted while disregarding any missing values from the tools. Figures 6 and 7 depict the ROC and PR curves, respectively. The results demonstrated that CDMPred exhibited the highest performance in terms of AUC and AUPR. The Delong tests (De Long, De Long & Clarke-Pearson, 1988) were conducted to assess whether the CDMPred’s performance was significantly different from that of other cancer-specific methods (Table S4) and general-purpose methods (Table S5). The p-value of the AUC results indicated that CDMPred exhibited significantly superior performance to all cancer-specific methods and was superior to nine out of ten general-purpose methods, except CADD (p-value =0.09677, Delong’s test). Furthermore, CDMPred demonstrated strong significance (with a p-value <0.001) compared to the other methods. It is worth noting that the AUPR value of CADD is 0.68 while that of CDMPred is 0.80. In total, the performance of CDMPred was robust.

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-6 Figure 6 ROC curves of CDMPred relative to state-of-the-art models on the independent test set.

(A) Comparison of performance between CDMPred and other methods designed to predict single nucleotide driver variants in cancer. (B) Comparison of performance between CDMPred and several general-purpose predictors.

10.7717/peerj.17991/fig-7 Figure 7 Precision–recall (PR) curves of CDMPred relative to state-of-the-art models on the independent test set.

(A) Comparison of performance between CDMPred and methods designed to predict single nucleotide driver variants in cancer. (B) Comparison of performance between CDMPred and several general-purpose predictors.

Case study

The principal advantage of our computational approach lies in its ability to significantly broaden the scope of analysis while concurrently preserving efficiency in terms of time and cost. A particularly compelling feature is its potential to inform and direct future experimental research, adeptly pinpointing candidate cancer driver mutations that merit in-depth investigation. In this context, we presented two illustrative cases predicted by CDMPred, juxtaposed with the predictions from several leading-edge methods. These include the cancer driver predictors CHASMplus and CScape-somatic, and the pathogenic missense mutation predictors ESM1b and AlphaMissense.

The kinase insert domain receptor (KDR), a type III receptor tyrosine kinase, is pivotal in mediating proliferation, survival, and migration induced by vascular endothelial growth factor. Its involvement is implicated in several diseases, including lymphoma (Rotunno et al., 2016). Experimental evidence has shown that p.A1065T, located within the activation loop, induces constitutive autophosphorylation on tyrosine independent of vascular endothelial growth factor stimulation. Additionally, kinase inhibitors effectively suppressed its activity (Rotunno et al., 2016; Flerlage et al., 2023). Our computational approach, CDMPred, precisely identified the KDR-p.A1065T mutation as a significant driver with a high prediction score of 0.824. In stark contrast, the cancer driver predictors CHASMplus and CScape-somatic misclassified it as a passenger mutation, with substantially lower prediction scores of 0.119 and 0.139, respectively. The pathogenic missense mutation predictors ESM1b and AlphaMissense also provided divergent assessments, with ESM1b categorizing it as a tolerated mutation (score = 0.423) and AlphaMissense as a likely benign mutation (score = 0.335).

The Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinase 1 (MAP2K1) gene encodes MEK1, a pivotal protein kinase in the RAS/MAPK pathway that transduces extracellular chemical signals to the cell nucleus. This signaling pathway regulates fundamental cellular processes such as proliferation, differentiation, migration, and apoptosis. A recent clinical observation identified the p.E120D mutation in a non-small-cell lung cancer patient (Wang et al., 2021). CDMPred and CScape-somatic correctly predicted MAP2K1-p.E120D as a significant driver mutation, with prediction scores of 0.810 and 0.742, respectively. Conversely, CHASMplus misclassified this mutation with a borderline score of 0.499, suggesting it was a passenger mutation. Additionally, ESM1b and AlphaMissense provided divergent classifications, with ESM1b scoring it as a tolerated mutation (score = 0.334) and AlphaMissense deeming it an ambiguous mutation (score = 0.366).

Discussion

For cancer-specific methods, TransFIC applied to PolyPhen-2 predictions due to the fewest missing values and achieved the second-highest AUC performance but ranked last in terms of AUPR. The CHASM prediction yielded an AUC of 0.61, sensitivity of 0.74, and specificity of 0.15. Similarly, CanDrA achieved an AUC of 0.51, sensitivity of 0.76, and specificity of 0.07. Therefore, both CHASM and CanDrA exhibited poor performance on the negative samples, indicating a severe imbalance that resulted in significantly low AUC values (as discussed below).

The CHASM training set comprised a balanced collection of positive and negative samples; however, there was only a 0.6% overlap at the transcript level (Carter et al., 2009). Therefore, we hypothesized that CHASM might be influenced by type 2 circularity, where the variant status was predominantly predicted based on other variants within the same protein (Grimm et al., 2015). As anticipated, 53% of false negatives in the CHASM predictions occurred in transcripts that completely overlapped with positive data in the CHASM training set. In contrast, only 0.9% were found in transcripts that entirely overlapped with negative data in the CHASM training set. Moreover, the opposite was observed for the true negatives of the CHASM predictions, with a higher number of samples found in transcripts that exclusively overlapped with negative data in the CHASM training set. Consequently, CHASM was influenced by type 2 circularity.

CanDrA proposed that driver mutations recurrently occurred in proximity (hotspots) in various types of cancer, whereas passenger mutations were not detected in any Cancer Gene Census (CGC) genes (Mao et al., 2013; Futreal et al., 2004). Based on our findings, we suspected the presence of type 2 circularity in CanDrA since it adhered to the screening criteria of the training set, resulting in minimal overlap between positive and negative samples at the transcript level. When the genes of the negative sample in the independent test set overlapped with the CGC genes, we identified shared genes in both sets. These genes were absent in the CanDrA training set, and the independent test set consisted of 95% negative samples, of which only 3% were true negatives. Moreover, the genes exclusively present in the negative samples of the independent test set, which could potentially be the genes corresponding to negative samples in the CanDrA training set, comprised 5% of the negative samples in the independent test set, of which >80% were predicted to be true negatives. Therefore, CanDrA predicted the variant status by relying on other variants within the same protein, indicating the presence of type 2 circularity. We have shown that the low AUC values obtained by both CHASM and CanDrA can be primarily attributed to type 2 circularity. Furthermore, considering the quality of training data, we propose that negative samples used in CHASM and CanDrA fail to represent the broad spectrum of passenger mutations.

CDMPred demonstrated the highest comprehensive predictive capacity among the general-disease deleterious mutation predictors, followed by CADD, Polyphen-2, and REVEL. Interestingly, these methods also surpassed the second-best predictor specific to cancer. PolyPhen-2 achieved an AUPR of 0.75 and a sensitivity of 0.83, indicating a relatively higher predictive ability than CDMPred for positive samples. However, in both the positive and negative samples of the independent test set, numerous predictions made by PolyPhen-2 were classified as “positive”, potentially corresponding to a range of diseases rather than solely cancer drivers (Bertrand et al., 2018). For instance, one of the true positives predicted by PolyPhen-2, “GATA2:p.R398W”, is associated with acute myeloid leukemia and alveolar proteinosis (Kazenwadel et al., 2012; Griese et al., 2015).

Furthermore, one of the false negatives predicted by PolyPhen-2, “HMBS:p.D359N”, is associated not only with cancer but also with acute intermittent porphyria (Dorschner et al., 2013; Lewis, 2006). Therefore, we directed our attention to the genes corresponding to the true negative and positive categories and the false negative and positive categories in the PolyPhen-2 predictions. We conducted enrichment analysis using the online tool DAVID to validate the suppositions mentioned above (Huang, Sherman & Lempicki, 2009). We gathered the pathways exclusively associated with general diseases, excluding cancer, and subsequently calculated the adjusted p-value (<0.05) using the hypergeometric test followed by the Benjamini–Hochberg test. Upon mapping the enrichment results at the mutation level, 65% of the results were associated with diseases present in both the true negatives and true positives of the PolyPhen-2 predictions. In comparison, 54% were associated with diseases present in both the false negatives and false positives of the PolyPhen-2 predictions. In conclusion, these findings support the presence of a systematic bias in driver mutation prediction by PolyPhen-2, even among general disease predictors.

CDMPred utilizes high-quality passenger mutations from dbCPM to distinguish between cancer missense driver mutations and passenger mutations. The results demonstrate that CDMPred achieved superior performance compared to various state-of-the-art methods for cancer-specific and general diseases. While our method offers significant insights, it has limitations. First, the curated datasets exhibit inherent biases, acknowledging that a mutation’s role as a driver or passenger mutation can vary with tumor microenvironments, as noted in recent literature (Ostroverkhova, Przytycka & Panchenko, 2023; Wodarz, Newell & Komarova, 2018). Therefore, this introduces selection and information bias in our supervised learning model. Second, our current method lacks the exploration of advanced machine-learning techniques. Recent studies have demonstrated that deep learning and protein language models could enhance performance in identifying pathogenic missense mutations (Cheng et al., 2023; Schubach et al., 2024).

Conclusions

The predictive performance of machine learning methods relies heavily on the quality of the training data. Consequently, including well-defined positive and negative samples of known instances is crucial. This study introduces CDMPred, a novel predictor that distinguishes cancer missense driver mutations from passenger mutations. Specifically, high-quality passenger mutations from dbCPM, chosen for their superior representativeness in modeling the diverse range of passenger mutations, were utilized as negative samples in the training set. The results demonstrated that incorporating high-quality passenger mutations through an ensemble learning method enhanced the accuracy of algorithms in predicting driver mutations in human cancer. In the future, our research will expand to include a broader collection of experimentally verified negative samples and explore the utilization of ensemble deep learning methods further to refine the predictive model (Xi et al., 2023; Deng et al., 2020).

Supplemental Information

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-1 Figure S1 Spearman correlations among 65 features

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-2 Table S1 Summary of mutation datasets used for feature analysis

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-3 Table S2 Definition of 65 features

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-4 Table S3 Comparison of performance on the training set with 10-fold cross validation between CDMPred and models trained on class labels using random permutation

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-5 Table S4 Comparison of performance on the independent test set between CDMPred and other methods designed to predict single nucleotide driver variants in cancer using the Delong test

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-6 Table S5 Comparison of performance on the independent test set between CDMPred and other general-purpose predictors using the Delong test

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-7 File S1 The training data set

Raw data for training the cancer driver missense mutation predictor.

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-8 File S2 The independent test set

Raw data for testing CDMPred and other state-of-the-art methods.

10.7717/peerj.17991/supp-9 File S3 The code for constructing the best model CDMPred

The library that the code runs on is scikit-learn v0.22.2.

The authors thank the members of our laboratory for their valuable contributions to CDMPred and the reviewers for their useful comments.

Additional Information and Declarations

Competing Interests

Author Contributions

Data Availability

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Lihua Wang performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Haiyang Sun performed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Zhenyu Yue analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft.

Junfeng Xia conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

Xiaoyan Li conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft.

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The raw data for training and testing and the code for CDMPred are available in the Supplementary Files.
==== Refs
References

Adzhubei et al. (2010) Adzhubei IA Schmidt S Peshkin L Ramensky VE Gerasimova A Bork P Kondrashov AS Sunyaev SR 2010 A method and server for predicting damaging missense mutations Nature Methods 7 4 248 249 10.1038/nmeth0410-248 20354512
Ainscough et al. (2016) Ainscough BJ Griffith M Coffman AC Wagner AH Kunisaki J Mayank Choudhary NK McMichael JF Fulton RS Wilson RK Griffith OL Mardis ER 2016 DoCM: a database of curated mutations in cancer Nature Methods 13 10 806 807 10.1038/nmeth.4000 27684579
Apweiler et al. (2004) Apweiler R Bairoch A Wu CH Barker WC Boeckmann B Ferro S Gasteiger E Huang HZ Lopez R Magrane M Martin MJ Natale DA O’Donovan C Redaschi N Yeh LSL 2004 UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase Nucleic Acids Research 32 D115 D119 10.1093/nar/gkh131 14681372
Bertrand et al. (2018) Bertrand D Drissler S Chia BK Koh JY Li C Suphavilai C Tan IB Nagarajan N 2018 ConsensusDriver improves upon individual algorithms for predicting driver alterations in different cancer types and individual patients Cancer Research 78 1 290 301 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-1345 29259006
Bray et al. (2024) Bray F Laversanne M Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Soerjomataram I Jemal A 2024 Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 74 3 229 263 10.3322/caac.21834 38572751
Buske et al. (2013) Buske OJ Manickaraj A Mital S Ray PN Brudno M 2013 Identification of deleterious synonymous variants in human genomes Bioinformatics 29 15 1843 1850 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt308 23736532
Carter et al. (2009) Carter H Chen S Isik L Tyekucheva S Velculescu VE Kinzler KW Vogelstein B Karchin R 2009 Cancer-specific high-throughput annotation of somatic mutations: computational prediction of driver missense mutations Cancer Research 69 16 6660 6667 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-1133 19654296
Chen & Guestrin (2016) Chen T Guestrin C 2016 Xgboost: a scalable tree boosting system KDD ’16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining New York ACM 785 794 10.1145/2939672.2939785
Cheng et al. (2023) Cheng J Novati G Pan J Bycroft C Žemgulyte A Applebaum T Pritzel A Wong LH Zielinski M Sargeant T Schneider RG Senior AW Jumper J Hassabis D Kohli P Ž Avsec 2023 Accurate proteome-wide missense variant effect prediction with AlphaMissense Science 381 6664 eadg7492 10.1126/science.adg7492 37733863
Cheng et al. (2024) Cheng N Bi C Shi Y Liu M Cao A Ren M Xia J Liang Z 2024 Effect predictor of driver synonymous mutations based on multi-feature fusion and iterative feature representation learning IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics 28 2 1144 1151 10.1109/JBHI.2023.3343075 38096097
Cheng et al. (2020) Cheng N Li M Zhao L Zhang B Yang Y Zheng C-H Xia J 2020 Comparison and integration of computational methods for deleterious synonymous mutation prediction Briefings in Bioinformatics 21 3 970 981 10.1093/bib/bbz047 31157880
Criscione et al. (2014) Criscione SW Zhang Y Thompson W Sedivy JM Neretti N 2014 Transcriptional landscape of repetitive elements in normal and cancer human cells BMC Genomics 15 1 583 10.1186/1471-2164-15-583 25012247
De Long, De Long & Clarke-Pearson (1988) De Long ER De Long DM Clarke-Pearson DL 1988 Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating ch aracteristic curves: a nonparametric approach Biometrics 44 3 837 845 10.2307/2531595 3203132
Deng et al. (2020) Deng Y Xu X Qiu Y Xia J Zhang W Liu S 2020 A multimodal deep learning framework for predicting drug–drug interaction events Bioinformatics 36 15 4316 4322 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa501 32407508
Dong et al. (2015) Dong C Wei P Jian X Gibbs R Boerwinkle E Wang K Liu X 2015 Comparison and integration of deleteriousness prediction methods for nonsynonymous SNVs in whole exome sequencing studies Human Molecular Genetics 24 8 2125 2137 10.1093/hmg/ddu733 25552646
Dorschner et al. (2013) Dorschner MO Amendola LM Turner EH Robertson PD Shirts BH Gallego CJ Bennett RL Jones KL Tokita MJ Bennett JT Kim JH Rosenthal EA Kim DS National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Grand Opportunity Exome Sequencing Project Tabor HK Bamshad MJ Motulsky AG Ronald Scott C Pritchard CC Walsh T Burke W Raskind WH Byers P Hisama FM Nickerson DA Jarvik GP 2013 Actionable, pathogenic incidental findings in 1,000 participants’ exomes American Journal of Human Genetics 93 4 631 640 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.08.006 24055113
Flerlage et al. (2023) Flerlage JE Myers JR Maciaszek JL Oak N Rashkin SR Hui Y Wang Y-D Chen W Wu G Chang T-C Hamilton K Tithi SS Goldin LR Rotunno M Caporaso N Vogt A Flamish D Wyatt K Liu J Tucker M Hahn CN Brown AL Scott HS Mullighan C Nichols KE Metzger ML McMaster ML Yang JJ Rampersaud E 2023 Discovery of novel predisposing coding and noncoding variants in familial Hodgkin lymphoma Blood 141 11 1293 1307 10.1182/blood.2022016056 35977101
Flicek et al. (2014) Flicek P Ridwan Amode M Barrell D Beal K Billis K Brent S Carvalho-Silva D Clapham P Coates G Fitzgerald S Gil L García Girón C Gordon L Hourlier T Hunt S Johnson N Juettemann T Kähäri AK Keenan S Kulesha E Martin FJ Maurel T McLaren WM Murphy DN Nag R Overduin B Pignatelli M Pritchard B Pritchard E Riat HS Ruffier M Sheppard D Taylor K Thormann A Trevanion SJ Vullo A Wilder SP Wilson M Zadissa A Aken BL Birney E Cunningham F Harrow J Herrero J Hubbard TJP Kinsella R Muffato M Parker A Spudich G Yates A Zerbino DR Searle SMJ 2014 Ensembl 2014 Nucleic Acids Research 42 D1 D749 D755 10.1093/nar/gkt1196 24316576
Futreal et al. (2004) Futreal PA Coin L Marshall M Down T Hubbard T Wooster R Rahman N Stratton MR 2004 A census of human cancer genes Nature Reviews Cancer 4 3 177 183 10.1038/nrc1299 14993899
Ge et al. (2022) Ge EJ Bush AI Casini A Cobine PA Cross JR De Nicola GM Dou QPing Franz KJ Gohil VM Gupta S Kaler SG Lutsenko S Mittal V Petris MJ Polishchuk R Ralle M Schilsky ML Tonks NK Vahdat LT Van Aelst L Xi D Yuan P Brady DC Chang CJ 2022 Connecting copper and cancer: from transition metal signalling to metalloplasia Nature Reviews Cancer 22 2 102 113 10.1038/s41568-021-00417-2 34764459
Gonzalez-Perez, Deu-Pons & Lopez-Bigas (2012) Gonzalez-Perez A Deu-Pons J Lopez-Bigas N 2012 Improving the prediction of the functional impact of cancer mutations by baseline tolerance transformation Genome Medicine 4 11 89 10.1186/gm390 23181723
Griese et al. (2015) Griese M Zarbock R Costabel U Hildebrandt J Theegarten D Albert M Thiel A Schams A Lange J Krenke K Wesselak T Schön C Kappler M Blum H Krebs S Jung A Kröner C Klein C Campo I Luisetti M Bonella F 2015 GATA2 deficiency in children and adults with severe pulmonary alveolar proteinosis and hematologic disorders BMC Pulmonary Medicine 15 1 87 10.1186/s12890-015-0083-2 26264606
Grimm et al. (2015) Grimm DG Azencott CA Aicheler F Gieraths U MacArthur DG Samocha KE Cooper DN Stenson PD Daly MJ Smoller JW Duncan LE Borgwardt KM 2015 The evaluation of tools used to predict the impact of missense variants is hindered by two types of circularity Human Mutation 36 5 513 523 10.1002/humu.22768 25684150
Hanahan & Weinberg (2011) Hanahan D Weinberg RA 2011 Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation Cell 144 5 646 674 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 21376230
Huang, Sherman & Lempicki (2009) Huang DW Sherman BT Lempicki RA 2009 Systematic and integrative analysis of large gene lists using DAVID bioinformatics resources Nature Protocols 4 1 44 57 10.1038/nprot.2008.211 19131956
Ioannidis et al. (2016) Ioannidis NM Rothstein JH Pejaver V Middha S McDonnell SK Baheti S Musolf A Li Q Holzinger E Karyadi D Cannon-Albright LA Teerlink CC Stanford JL Isaacs WB Xu J Cooney KA Lange EM Schleutker J Carpten JD Powell IJ Cussenot O Cancel-Tassin G Giles GG MacInnis RJ Maier C Hsieh CL Wiklund F Catalona WJ Foulkes WD Mandal D Eeles RA Kote-Jarai Z Bustamante CD Schaid DJ Hastie T Ostrander EA Bailey-Wilson JE Radivojac P Thibodeau SN Whittemore AS Sieh W 2016 REVEL: an ensemble method for predicting the pathogenicity of rare missense variants American Journal of Human Genetics 99 4 877 885 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.08.016 27666373
Jagadeesh et al. (2016) Jagadeesh KA Wenger AM Berger MJ Guturu H Stenson PD Cooper DN Bernstein JA Bejerano G 2016 M-CAP eliminates a majority of variants of uncertain significance in clinical exomes at high sensitivity Nature Genetics 48 12 1581 1586 10.1038/ng.3703 27776117
Katzman et al. (2008) Katzman S Barrett C Thiltgen G Karchin R Karplus K 2008 PREDICT-2ND: a tool for generalized protein local structure prediction Bioinformatics 24 21 2453 2459 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn438 18757875
Kazenwadel et al. (2012) Kazenwadel J Secker GA Liu YJ Rosenfeld JA Wildin RS Cuellar-Rodriguez J Hsu AP Dyack S Fernandez CV Chong C-E Babic M Bardy PG Shimamura A Zhang MY Walsh T Holland SM Hickstein DD Horwitz MS Hahn CN Scott HS Harvey NL 2012 Loss-of-function germline GATA2 mutations in patients with MDS/AML or MonoMAC syndrome and primary lymphedema reveal a key role for GATA2 in the lymphatic vasculature Blood 119 5 1283 1291 10.1182/blood-2011-08-374363 22147895
Kent et al. (2002) Kent WJ Sugnet CW Furey TS Roskin KM Pringle TH Zahler AM Haussler D 2002 The human genome browser at UCSC Genome Research 12 6 996 1006 10.1101/gr.229102 12045153
Kircher et al. (2014) Kircher M Witten DM Jain P O’Roak BJ Cooper GM Shendure J 2014 A general framework for estimating the relative pathogenicity of human genetic variants Nature Genetics 46 3 310 315 10.1038/ng.2892 24487276
Kumar, Henikoff & Ng (2009) Kumar P Henikoff S Ng PC 2009 Predicting the effects of coding non-synonymous variants on protein function using the SIFT algorithm Nature Protocols 4 7 1073 1081 10.1038/nprot.2009.86 19561590
Lewis (2006) Lewis PD 2006 Novel human pathological mutations Human Genetics 118 6 359 364
Liao et al. (2023) Liao X Zhu W Zhou J Li H Xu X Zhang B Gao X 2023 Repetitive DNA sequence detection and its role in the human genome Communications Biology 6 1 954 10.1038/s42003-023-05322-y 37726397
Liu et al. (2020) Liu X Li C Mou C Dong Y Tu Y 2020 dbNSFP v4: a comprehensive database of transcript-specific functional predictions and annotations for human nonsynonymous and splice-site SNVs Genome Medicine 12 1 103 10.1186/s13073-020-00803-9 33261662
Mao et al. (2013) Mao Y Chen H Liang H Meric-Bernstam F Mills GB Chen K 2013 CanDrA: cancer-specific driver missense mutation annotation with optimized features PLOS ONE 8 10 e77945 10.1371/journal.pone.0077945 24205039
Masica et al. (2017) Masica DL Douville C Tokheim C Bhattacharya R Kim R Moad K Ryan MC Karchin R 2017 CRAVAT 4: cancer-related analysis of variants toolkit Cancer Research 77 21 e35-e38 10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-3538 29092935
Muiños et al. (2021) Muiños F Martínez-Jiménez F Pich O Gonzalez-Perez A Lopez-Bigas N 2021 In silico saturation mutagenesis of cancer genes Nature 596 7872 428 432 10.1038/s41586-021-03771-1 34321661
Nourbakhsh et al. (2024) Nourbakhsh M Degn K Saksager A Tiberti M Papaleo E 2024 Prediction of cancer driver genes and mutations: the potential of integrative computational frameworks Briefings in Bioinformatics 25 2 1 16
Ostroverkhova, Przytycka & Panchenko (2023) Ostroverkhova D Przytycka TM Panchenko AR 2023 Cancer driver mutations: predictions and reality Trends in Molecular Medicine 29 7 554 566 10.1016/j.molmed.2023.03.007 37076339
Qi et al. (2021) Qi H Zhang H Zhao Y Chen C Long JJ Chung WK Guan Y Shen Y 2021 MVP predicts the pathogenicity of missense variants by deep learning Nature Communications 12 1 510 10.1038/s41467-020-20847-0
Quang, Chen & Xie (2015) Quang D Chen Y Xie X 2015 DANN: a deep learning approach for annotating the pathogenicity of genetic variants Bioinformatics 31 5 761 763 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu703 25338716
Reva, Antipin & Sander (2011) Reva B Antipin Y Sander C 2011 Predicting the functional impact of protein mutations: application to cancer genomics Nucleic Acids Research 39 17 e118 10.1093/nar/gkr407 21727090
Ribeiro et al. (2004) Ribeiro GRH Francisco G Teixeira LVS Romao-Correia RF Sanches JA Neto CF Ruiz IRG 2004 Repetitive DNA alterations in human skin cancers Journal of Dermatological Science 36 2 79 86 10.1016/j.jdermsci.2004.08.003 15519137
Rogers, Gaunt & Campbell (2020) Rogers MF Gaunt TR Campbell C 2020 CScape-somatic: distinguishing driver and passenger point mutations in the cancer genome Bioinformatics 36 12 3637 3644 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa242 32282885
Rogers, Gaunt & Campbell (2021) Rogers MF Gaunt TR Campbell C 2021 Prediction of driver variants in the cancer genome via machine learning methodologies Briefings in Bioinformatics 22 4 bbaa250 10.1093/bib/bbaa250 33094325
Rotunno et al. (2016) Rotunno M McMaster ML Boland J Bass S Zhang X Burdett L Hicks B Ravichandran S Luke BT Yeager M Fontaine L Hyland PL Goldstein AM Chanock SJ Caporaso NE Tucker MA Goldin LR 2016 Whole exome sequencing in families at high risk for Hodgkin lymphoma: identification of a predisposing mutation in the KDR gene Haematologica 101 7 853 860 10.3324/haematol.2015.135475 27365461
Schubach et al. (2024) Schubach M Maass T Nazaretyan L Röner S Kircher M 2024 CADD v1.7: using protein language models, regulatory CNNs and other nucleotide-level scores to improve genome-wide variant predictions Nucleic Acids Research 52 D1 D1143 D1154 10.1093/nar/gkad989 38183205
Shen et al. (2017) Shen Q Cheng F Song H Lu W Zhao J An X Liu M Chen G Zhao Z Zhang J 2017 Proteome-scale investigation of protein allosteric regulation perturbed by somatic mutations in 7000 cancer genomes The American Journal of Human Genetics 100 1 5 20 10.1016/j.ajhg.2016.09.020 27939638
Shihab et al. (2013) Shihab HA Gough J Cooper DN Day IN Gaunt TR 2013 Predicting the functional consequences of cancer-associated amino acid substitutions Bioinformatics 29 12 1504 1510 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt182 23620363
Song et al. (2019) Song K Li Q Gao W Lu S Shen Q Liu X Wu Y Wang B Lin H Chen G Zhang J 2019 AlloDriver: a method for the identification and analysis of cancer driver targets Nucleic Acids Research 47 W1 W315 W321 10.1093/nar/gkz350 31069394
Song et al. (2023) Song Q Li M Li Q Lu X Song K Zhang Z Wei J Zhang L Wei J Ye Y Zha J Zhang Q Gao Q Long J Liu X Lu X Zhang J 2023 DeepAlloDriver: a deep learning-based strategy to predict cancer driver mutations Nucleic Acids Research 51 W1 W129 W133 10.1093/nar/gkad295 37078611
Tokheim & Karchin (2019) Tokheim C Karchin R 2019 CHASMplus reveals the scope of somatic missense mutations driving human cancers Cell Systems 9 1 9 23.e8 10.1016/j.cels.2019.05.005 31202631
Tomasetti et al. (2015) Tomasetti C Marchionni L Nowak MA Parmigiani G Vogelstein B 2015 Only three driver gene mutations are required for the development of lung and colorectal cancers Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 1 118 123 25535351
Vogelstein et al. (2013) Vogelstein B Papadopoulos N Velculescu VE Zhou S Diaz Jr LA Kinzler KW 2013 Cancer genome landscapes Science 339 6127 1546 1558 10.1126/science.1235122 23539594
Wang et al. (2021) Wang W Xu C Wang D Zhu Y Zhuang W Fang M Lv T Song Y 2021 P70.05 The association between MAP2K1 mutation class and clinical features in MAP2K1-mutant east asian non-small cell lung cancer patients Journal of Thoracic Oncology 16 3 S564 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.1016
Wodarz, Newell & Komarova (2018) Wodarz D Newell AC Komarova NL 2018 Passenger mutations can accelerate tumour suppressor gene inactivation in cancer evolution Journal of the Royal Society, Interface 15 143 20170967 10.1098/rsif.2017.0967 29875280
Won et al. (2021) Won D-G Kim D-W Woo J Lee K Marschall T 2021 3Cnet: pathogenicity prediction of human variants using multitask learning with evolutionary constraints Bioinformatics 37 24 4626 4634 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab529 34270679
Wong et al. (2011) Wong WC Kim D Carter H Diekhans M Ryan MC Karchin R 2011 CHASM and SNVBox: toolkit for detecting biologically important single nucleotide mutations in cancer Bioinformatics 27 15 2147 2148 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr357 21685053
Wood et al. (2007) Wood LD Parsons DW Jones S Lin J Sjoblom T Leary RJ Shen D Boca SM Barber T Ptak J Silliman N Szabo S Dezso Z Ustyanksky V Nikolskaya T Nikolsky Y Karchin R Wilson PA Kaminker JS Zhang Z Croshaw R Willis J Dawson D Shipitsin M Willson KVJ Sukumar S Polyak K Park BH Pethiyagoda CL Pant PVK Ballinger DG Sparks AB Hartigan J Smith DR Suh E Papadopoulos N Buckhaults P Markowitz SD Parmigiani G Kinzler KW Velculescu VE Vogelstein B 2007 The genomic landscapes of human breast and colorectal cancers Science 318 5853 1108 1113 10.1126/science.1145720 17932254
Xi et al. (2023) Xi J Sun D Chang C Zhou S Huang Q 2023 An omics-to-omics joint knowledge association subtensor model for radiogenomics cross-modal modules from genomics and ultrasonic images of breast cancers Computers in Biology and Medicine 155 106672 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.106672 36805226
Xi et al. (2020) Xi J Yuan X Wang M Li A Li X Huang Q 2020 Inferring subgroup-specific driver genes from heterogeneous cancer samples via subspace learning with subgroup indication Bioinformatics 36 6 1855 1863 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz793 31626284
Xu et al. (2016) Xu D Jalal SI Sledge GW Meroueh SO 2016 Small-molecule binding sites to explore protein–protein interactions in the cancer proteome Molecular Biosystems 12 10 3067 3087 10.1039/C6MB00231E 27452673
Yue, Zhao & Xia (2020) Yue Z Zhao L Xia J 2020 dbCPM: a manually curated database for exploring the cancer passenger mutations Briefings in Bioinformatics 21 1 309 317 10.1093/bib/bby105 30379998
Zeng et al. (2018) Zeng X Liu L Lü L Zou Q 2018 Prediction of potential disease-associated microRNAs using structural perturbation method Bioinformatics 34 14 2425 2432 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty112 29490018
