Thorough in silico and in vitro cDNA analysis of 21 putative<i>BRCA1</i>and<i>BRCA2</i>splice variants and a complex tandem duplication in<i>BRCA2</i>allowing the identification of activated cryptic splice donor sites in<i>BRCA2</i>exon 11
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For 21 putative BRCA1 and BRCA2 splice site variants, the concordance between mRNA analysis and predictions by in silico programs was evaluated. Aberrant splicing was confirmed for 12 alterations. In silico prediction tools were helpful to determine for which variants cDNA analysis is warranted, however, predictions for variants in the Cartegni consensus region but outside the canonical sites, were less reliable. Learning algorithms like Adaboost and Random Forest outperformed the classical tools. Further validations are warranted prior to implementation of these novel tools in clinical settings. Additionally, we report here for the first time activated cryptic donor sites in the large exon 11 of BRCA2 by evaluating the effect at the cDNA level of a novel tandem duplication (5' breakpoint in intron 4; 3' breakpoint in exon 11) and of a variant disrupting the splice donor site of exon 11 (c.6841+1G > C). Additional sites were predicted, but not activated. These sites warrant further research to increase our knowledge on cis and trans acting factors involved in the conservation of correct transcription of this large exon. This may contribute to adequate design of ASOs (antisense oligonucleotides), an emerging therapy to render cancer cells sensitive to PARP inhibitor and platinum therapies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".