Quantifying Genomic Imprinting in the Presence of Linkage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic imprinting decreases the power of classical linkage analysis, in which paternal and maternal transmissions of marker alleles are equally weighted. Several methods have been proposed for taking genomic imprinting into account in the model-free linkage analysis of binary traits. However, none of these methods are suitable for the formal identification and quantification of genomic imprinting in the presence of linkage. In addition, the available methods are designed for use with pure sib-pairs, requiring artificial decomposition in cases of larger sibships, leading to a loss of power. We propose here the maximum likelihood binomial method adaptive for imprinting (MLB-I), which is a unified analytic framework giving rise to specific tests in sibships of any size for (i) linkage adaptive to imprinting, (ii) genomic imprinting in the presence of linkage, and (iii) partial versus complete genomic imprinting. In addition, we propose an original measure for quantifying genomic imprinting. We have derived and validated the distribution of the three tests under their respective null hypotheses for various genetic models, and have assessed the power of these tests in simulations. This method can readily be applied to genome-wide scanning, as illustrated here for leprosy sibships. Our approach provides a novel tool for dissecting genomic imprinting in model-free linkage analysis, and will be of considerable value for identifying and evaluating the contribution of imprinted genes to complex diseases.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".