A novel mechanistic spectrum underlies glaucoma-associated chromosome 6p25 copy number variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The factors that mediate chromosomal rearrangement remain incompletely defined. Among regions prone to structural variant formation, chromosome 6p25 is one of the few in which disease-associated segmental duplications and segmental deletions have been identified, primarily through gene dosage attributable ocular phenotypes. Using array comparative genome hybridization, we studied ten 6p25 duplication and deletion pedigrees and amplified junction fragments from each. Analysis of the breakpoint architecture revealed that all the rearrangements were non-recurrent, and in contrast to most previous examples the majority of the segmental duplications and deletions utilized coupled homologous and non-homologous recombination mechanisms. One junction fragment exhibited an unprecedented 367 bp insert derived from tandemly arranged breakpoint elements. While this accorded with a recently described replication-based mechanism, it differed from the previous example in being unassociated with template switching, and occurring in a segmental deletion. These results extend the mechanisms involved in structural variant formation, provide strong evidence that a spectrum of recombination, DNA repair and replication underlie 6p25 rearrangements, and have implications for genesis of copy number variations in other genomic regions. These findings highlight the benefits of undertaking the extensive studies necessary to characterize structural variants at the base pair level.
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".