Hello,
I have recently noted a discrepancy the scores given by running PolyPhen at its website vs getting the PolyPhen score from ensembl's variant effect predictor (VEP, hg19). Here is one example, with the polyphen scores bolded:
POLYPHEN
VEP
- Pasted data: AKT2:c.136G>A
- 1000 Genomes continental allele
frequencies: Enabled
- 1000 Genomes global minor allele frequency: Enabled
- APPRIS: Enabled
- BLOSUM62(p): Enabled
- Condel(p): Enabled
- Condel Score/prediction(p): Prediction and score
- CSN(p): Enabled
- ExAC allele frequencies: Enabled
- Exon and intron numbers: Enabled
- Filter by frequency: Exclude variants with MAF greater than 0.05 in 1000
genomes (1KG) combined population
- Find co-located known variants: Enabled
- Gene symbol: Enabled
- HGVS: Enabled LoFtool(p): Enabled
- MaxEntScan(p): Enabled
- PolyPhen: Prediction and score
- Protein: Enabled
- PubMed IDs for citations of co-located variants: Enabled
- Get regulatory region consequences: Yes
- Restrict results: Disabled
- SIFT: Prediction and score
- Transcript biotype: Enabled
- Transcript database to use: Ensembl transcripts
- Transcript support level: Enabled
- Polyphen Score for transcript ENST00000392038: 0.805
Which score is more trustworthy?
-edited, as my initial question (why they are different) has been answered (differing protein databases)
polyphen
vep
annotation
missense