Prioritizing Variants in Complete Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer Genes in Patients Lacking Known <i>BRCA</i> Mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) does not identify all pathogenic variants. Sequencing of 20 complete genes in HBOC patients with uninformative test results (N = 287), including noncoding and flanking sequences of ATM, BARD1, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDH1, CHEK2, EPCAM, MLH1, MRE11A, MSH2, MSH6, MUTYH, NBN, PALB2, PMS2, PTEN, RAD51B, STK11, TP53, and XRCC2, identified 38,372 unique variants. We apply information theory (IT) to predict and prioritize noncoding variants of uncertain significance in regulatory, coding, and intronic regions based on changes in binding sites in these genes. Besides mRNA splicing, IT provides a common framework to evaluate potential affinity changes in transcription factor (TFBSs), splicing regulatory (SRBSs), and RNA-binding protein (RBBSs) binding sites following mutation. We prioritized variants affecting the strengths of 10 splice sites (four natural, six cryptic), 148 SRBS, 36 TFBS, and 31 RBBS. Three variants were also prioritized based on their predicted effects on mRNA secondary (2°) structure and 17 for pseudoexon activation. Additionally, four frameshift, two in-frame deletions, and five stop-gain mutations were identified. When combined with pedigree information, complete gene sequence analysis can focus attention on a limited set of variants in a wide spectrum of functional mutation types for downstream functional and co-segregation analysis.
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 | 0.000 | 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".