Interpretation of mRNA splicing mutations in genetic disease: review of the literature and guidelines for information-theoretical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interpretation of genomic variants has become one of the paramount challenges in the post-genome sequencing era. In this review we summarize nearly 20 years of research on the applications of information theory (IT) to interpret coding and non-coding mutations that alter mRNA splicing in rare and common diseases. We compile and summarize the spectrum of published variants analyzed by IT, to provide a broad perspective of the distribution of deleterious natural and cryptic splice site variants detected, as well as those affecting splicing regulatory sequences. Results for natural splice site mutations can be interrogated dynamically with Splicing Mutation Calculator, a companion software program that computes changes in information content for any splice site substitution, linked to corresponding publications containing these mutations. The accuracy of IT-based analysis was assessed in the context of experimentally validated mutations. Because splice site information quantifies binding affinity, IT-based analyses can discern the differences between variants that account for the observed reduced (leaky) versus abolished mRNA splicing. We extend this principle by comparing predicted mutations in natural, cryptic, and regulatory splice sites with observed deleterious phenotypic and benign effects. Our analysis of 1727 variants revealed a number of general principles useful for ensuring portability of these analyses and accurate input and interpretation of mutations. We offer guidelines for optimal use of IT software for interpretation of mRNA splicing 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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".