Human Gene Expression Variability and its Dependence on Methylation and Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Phenotypic variability of human populations is partly the result of gene polymorphism and differential gene expression. As such, understanding the molecular basis for diversity requires identifying genes with both high and low population expression variance and identifying the mechanisms underlying their expression control. Key issues remain unanswered with respect to expression variability in human populations. The role of gene methylation as well as the contribution that age, sex and tissue-specific factors have on expression variability are not well understood. Results Here we used a novel method that accounts for sampling error to classify human genes based on their expression variability in normal human breast and brain tissues. We find that high expression variability is almost exclusively unimodal, indicating that variance is not the result of segregation into distinct expression states. Genes with high expression variability differ markedly between tissues and we find that genes with high population expression variability are likely to have age-, but not sex-dependent expression. Lastly, we find that methylation likely has a key role in controlling expression variability insofar as genes with low expression variability are likely to be non-methylated. Conclusions We conclude that gene expression variability in the human population is likely to be important in tissue development and identity, methylation, and in natural biological aging. The expression variability of a gene is an important functional characteristic of the gene itself and the classification of a gene as one with Hyper-Variability or Hypo-Variability in a human population or in a specific tissue should be useful in the identification of important genes that functionally regulate development or disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".