Ranking insertion, deletion and nonsense mutations based on their effect on genetic information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genetic variations contribute to normal phenotypic differences as well as diseases, and new sequencing technologies are greatly increasing the capacity to identify these variations. Given the large number of variations now being discovered, computational methods to prioritize the functional importance of genetic variations are of growing interest. Thus far, the focus of computational tools has been mainly on the prediction of the effects of amino acid changing single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and little attention has been paid to indels or nonsense SNPs that result in premature stop codons. RESULTS: We propose computational methods to rank insertion-deletion mutations in the coding as well as non-coding regions and nonsense mutations. We rank these variations by measuring the extent of their effect on biological function, based on the assumption that evolutionary conservation reflects function. Using sequence data from budding yeast and human, we show that variations which that we predict to have larger effects segregate at significantly lower allele frequencies, and occur less frequently than expected by chance, indicating stronger purifying selection. Furthermore, we find that insertions, deletions and premature stop codons associated with disease in the human have significantly larger predicted effects than those not associated with disease. Interestingly, the large-effect mutations associated with disease show a similar distribution of predicted effects to that expected for completely random mutations. CONCLUSIONS: This demonstrates that the evolutionary conservation context of the sequences that harbour insertions, deletions and nonsense mutations can be used to predict and rank the effects of the mutations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".