Inferring Disease Risk Genes from Sequencing Data in Multiplex Pedigrees Through Sharing of Rare Variants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We previously demonstrated how sharing of rare variants (RVs) in distant affected relatives can be used to identify variants causing a complex and heterogeneous disease. This approach tested whether single RVs were shared by all sequenced affected family members. However, as with other study designs, joint analysis of several RVs (e.g. within genes) is sometimes required to obtain sufficient statistical power. Further, phenocopies can lead to false negatives for some causal RVs if complete sharing among affecteds is required. Here we extend our methodology (Rare Variant Sharing, RVS) to address these issues. Specifically, we introduce gene-based analyses, refine RV definition based on haplotypes, and introduce a partial sharing test based on RV sharing probabilities for subsets of affected family members. RVS also has the desirable features of not requiring external estimates of variant frequency or control samples, provides functionality to assess and address violations of key assumptions, and is available as open source software for genome-wide analysis. Simulations including phenocopies, based on the families of an oral cleft study, revealed the partial and complete sharing versions of RVS achieved similar statistical power compared to alternative methods (RareIBD and the Gene-Based Segregation Test), and had superior power compared to the pedigree Variant Annotation, Analysis and Search Tool (pVAAST) linkage statistic. In studies of multiplex cleft families, analysis of rare single nucleotide variants in the exome of 151 affected relatives from 54 families revealed no significant excess sharing in any one gene, but highlighted different patterns of sharing revealed by the complete and partial sharing tests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".