MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003924427 · doi:10.1002/humu.22083

Regulatory variations in the era of next-generation sequencing: Implications for clinical molecular diagnostics

2012· review· en· W2003924427 on OpenAlexafffund
Olga Jarinova, Marc Ekker

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Mutation · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyComputational biologyRegulatory sequenceAlternative splicingGeneGeneticsRNA splicingDiseaseDNA sequencingRegulation of gene expressionRNAMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the successful identification of many protein-coding genes, the focus has now shifted toward deciphering functions of non-protein-coding regions that direct spatiotemporal and quantitative aspects of protein expression. Recent advances in our understanding of the regulatory architecture of the human genome coincide with growing evidence that changes in regulatory sequences are associated with human disease. Several recent reviews have highlighted disease-causing potential of aberrations in transcriptional and splicing regulatory elements as well as non-protein-coding RNA. Although changes in regulatory sequences generally produce milder biological effects than their protein-coding counterparts, many act as independent risk factors for common complex disorders or as genetic modifiers for "primary" disease-causing loci. Here, we review bioinformatics and experimental approaches that are used to identify regulatory sequences and assess pathogenicity of regulatory changes. We describe the current state of knowledge on disease-causing changes in regulatory sequences, challenge protein-centric views, and discuss complexities and solutions pertaining to the interpretation of regulatory changes in the next-generation sequencing era.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.288
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman MutationSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207