Exonic splice regulation imposes strong selection at synonymous sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What proportion of coding sequence nucleotides have roles in splicing, and how strong is the selection that maintains them? Despite a large body of research into exonic splice regulatory signals, these questions have not been answered. This is because, to our knowledge, previous investigations have not explicitly disentangled the frequency of splice regulatory elements from the strength of the evolutionary constraint under which they evolve. Current data are consistent both with a scenario of weak and diffuse constraint, enveloping large swaths of sequence, as well as with well-defined pockets of strong purifying selection. In the former case, natural selection on exonic splice enhancers (ESEs) might primarily act as a slight modifier of codon usage bias. In the latter, mutations that disrupt ESEs are likely to have large fitness and, potentially, clinical effects. To distinguish between these scenarios, we used several different methods to determine the distribution of selection coefficients for new mutations within ESEs. The analyses converged to suggest that ∼15%-20% of fourfold degenerate sites are part of functional ESEs. Most of these sites are under strong evolutionary constraint. Therefore, exonic splice regulation does not simply impose a weak bias that gently nudges coding sequence evolution in a particular direction. Rather, the selection to preserve these motifs is a strong force that severely constrains the evolution of a substantial proportion of coding nucleotides. Thus synonymous mutations that disrupt ESEs should be considered as a potentially common cause of single-locus genetic disorders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".