Using linked markers to infer the age of a mutation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in sequencing and genotyping technologies over the last decade have enabled geneticists to easily characterize genetic variation at the nucleotide level. Hundreds of genes harboring mutations associated with genetic disease have now been identified by positional cloning. Using variation at closely linked genetic markers, it is possible to predict the times in the past at which particular mutations arose. Such studies suggest that many of the rare mutations underlying human genetic disorders are relatively young. Studies of variation at genetic markers linked to particular mutations can provide insights into human geographic history, and historical patterns of natural selection and disease, that are not available from other sources. We review two approaches for estimating allele age using variation at linked genetic markers. A phylogenetic approach aims to reconstruct the gene tree underlying a sample of chromosomes carrying a particular mutation, obtaining a "direct" estimate of allele age from the age of the root of this tree. A population genetic approach relies on models of demography, mutation, and/or recombination to estimate allele age without explicitly reconstructing the gene tree. Phylogenetic methods are best suited for studies of ancient mutations, while population genetic methods are better suited for studies of recent mutations. Methods that rely on recombination to infer the ages of alleles can be fine-tuned by choosing linked markers at optimal map distances to maximize the information available about allele age. A limitation of methods that rely on recombination is the frequent lack of a fine-scale linkage map. Maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods for estimating allele age that rely on intensive numerical computation are described, as well as "composite" likelihood and moment-based methods that lead to simple estimators. The former provide more accurate estimates (particularly for large samples of chromosomes) and should be employed if computationally practical.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".