MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2786195150 · doi:10.1534/g3.118.200080

Genomic Context Analysis of <i>de Novo STXBP1</i> Mutations Identifies Evidence of Splice Site DNA-Motif Associated Hotspots

2018· article· en· W2786195150 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Uddin, Marc Woodbury‐Smith, Ada J. S. Chan, Ammar Albanna, Berge A. Minassian, Cyrus Boelman, Stephen W. Scherer

Bibliographic record

VenueG3 Genes Genomes Genetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoBC Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGeneticsBiologyINDEL MutationIndelGeneRNA splicingRNASingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mutations within STXBP1 have been associated with a range of neurodevelopmental disorders implicating the pleotropic impact of this gene. Although the frequency of de novo mutations within STXBP1 for selective cohorts with early onset epileptic encephalopathy is more than 1%, there is no evidence for a hotspot within the gene. In this study, we analyzed the genomic context of de novo STXBP1 mutations to examine whether certain motifs indicated a greater risk of mutation. Through a comprehensive context analysis of 136 de novo/rare mutation (SNV/Indels) sites in this gene, strikingly 26.92% of all SNV mutations occurred within 5bp upstream or downstream of a ‘GTA’ motif (P &amp;lt; 0.0005). This implies a genomic context modulated mutagenesis. Moreover, 51.85% (14 out of 27) of the ‘GTA’ mutations are splicing compared to 14.70% (20 out of 136) of all reported mutations within STXBP1. We also noted that 11 of these 14 ‘GTA’ associated mutations are de novo in origin. Our analysis provides strong evidence of DNA motif modulated mutagenesis for STXBP1 de novo 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueG3 Genes Genomes GeneticsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207