Influence of human genome polymorphism on gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic variation, through its effects on gene expression, plays a crucial role in phenotypic variation and disease susceptibility. Recent studies from our group and others have integrated a number of resources and technologies to assess several aspects of genome variation affecting gene expression. Some of these large-scale mapping studies involving expression quantitative traits have recently been reviewed [Gibson, G. and Weir, B. (2005) The quantitative genetics of transcription. Trends Genet., 21, 616-623; de Koning, D.J. and Haley, C.S. (2005) Genetical genomics in humans and model organisms. Trends Genet., 21, 377-381], with particular attention to the statistical issues. In this review, we compare allele-specific expression studies in human samples (primarily lymphoblastoid cell lines from the CEPH HapMap panel), as a prelude to a discussion on study design issues and sources of variation, in order to propose the steps required to build a detailed map of cis-acting regulatory variation in the human genome. Obtaining panels of tissues from large numbers of individuals remains an important limitation. We also conclude that there is insufficient knowledge as to the feasibility of comprehensive studies of trans-acting variation in the human genome.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".