MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238703971 · doi:10.1017/s0952523815000322

Comparative sequence analyses of rhodopsin and RPE65 reveal patterns of selective constraint across hereditary retinal disease mutations

2016· article· en· W2238703971 on OpenAlexafffund
Frances E. Hauser, Ryan K. Schott, Gianni M. Castiglione, Alexander Van Nynatten, Alexander Kosyakov, Portia L. Tang, Dr Elizabeth. Gow, Belinda S. W. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsRPE65RhodopsinSequence (biology)BiologyGeneticsRetinalMutationDiseaseConstraint (computer-aided design)GeneMedicineBiochemistryInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) comprises several heritable diseases that involve photoreceptor, and ultimately retinal, degeneration. Currently, mutations in over 50 genes have known links to RP. Despite advances in clinical characterization, molecular characterization of RP remains challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of causal genes, mutations, and clinical phenotypes. In this study, we compiled large datasets of two important visual genes associated with RP: rhodopsin, which initiates the phototransduction cascade, and the retinoid isomerase RPE65, which regenerates the visual cycle. We used a comparative evolutionary approach to investigate the relationship between interspecific sequence variation and pathogenic mutations that lead to degenerative retinal disease. Using codon-based likelihood methods, we estimated evolutionary rates (d N/d S) across both genes in a phylogenetic context to investigate differences between pathogenic and nonpathogenic amino acid sites. In both genes, disease-associated sites showed significantly lower evolutionary rates compared to nondisease sites, and were more likely to occur in functionally critical areas of the proteins. The nature of the dataset (e.g., vertebrate or mammalian sequences), as well as selection of pathogenic sites, affected the differences observed between pathogenic and nonpathogenic sites. Our results illustrate that these methods can serve as an intermediate step in understanding protein structure and function in a clinical context, particularly in predicting the relative pathogenicity (i.e., functional impact) of point mutations and their downstream phenotypic effects. Extensions of this approach may also contribute to current methods for predicting the deleterious effects of candidate mutations and to the identification of protein regions under strong constraint where we expect pathogenic mutations to occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual NeuroscienceSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207