Decoding the non‐coding genome: elucidating genetic risk outside the coding genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current evidence emerging from genome-wide association studies indicates that the genetic underpinnings of complex traits are likely attributable to genetic variation that changes gene expression, rather than (or in combination with) variation that changes protein-coding sequences. This is particularly compelling with respect to psychiatric disorders, as genetic changes in regulatory regions may result in differential transcriptional responses to developmental cues and environmental/psychosocial stressors. Until recently, however, the link between transcriptional regulation and psychiatric genetic risk has been understudied. Multiple obstacles have contributed to the paucity of research in this area, including challenges in identifying the positions of remote (distal from the promoter) regulatory elements (e.g. enhancers) and their target genes and the underrepresentation of neural cell types and brain tissues in epigenome projects - the availability of high-quality brain tissues for epigenetic and transcriptome profiling, particularly for the adolescent and developing brain, has been limited. Further challenges have arisen in the prediction and testing of the functional impact of DNA variation with respect to multiple aspects of transcriptional control, including regulatory-element interaction (e.g. between enhancers and promoters), transcription factor binding and DNA methylation. Further, the brain has uncommon DNA-methylation marks with unique genomic distributions not found in other tissues - current evidence suggests the involvement of non-CG methylation and 5-hydroxymethylation in neurodevelopmental processes but much remains unknown. We review here knowledge gaps as well as both technological and resource obstacles that will need to be overcome in order to elucidate the involvement of brain-relevant gene-regulatory variants in genetic risk for psychiatric disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".