Systematic analysis of dark and camouflaged genes: disease-relevant genes hiding in plain sight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The human genome contains ‘dark’ gene regions that cannot be adequately assembled or aligned using standard short-read sequencing technologies, preventing researchers from identifying mutations within these gene regions that may be relevant to human disease. Here, we identify regions that are ‘dark by depth’ (few mappable reads) and others that are ‘camouflaged’ (ambiguous alignment), and we assess how well long-read technologies resolve these regions. We further present an algorithm to resolve most camouflaged regions (including in short-read data) and apply it to the Alzheimer’s Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP; 13142 samples), as a proof of principle. Results Based on standard whole-genome lllumina sequencing data, we identified 37873 dark regions in 5857 gene bodies (3635 protein-coding) from pathways important to human health, development, and reproduction. Of the 5857 gene bodies, 494 (8.4%) were 100% dark (142 protein-coding) and 2046 (34.9%) were ≥5% dark (628 protein-coding). Exactly 2757 dark regions were in protein-coding exons (CDS) across 744 genes. Long-read sequencing technologies from 10x Genomics, PacBio, and Oxford Nanopore Technologies reduced dark CDS regions to approximately 45.1%, 33.3%, and 18.2% respectively. Applying our algorithm to the ADSP, we rescued 4622 exonic variants from 501 camouflaged genes, including a rare, ten-nucleotide frameshift deletion in CR1 , a top Alzheimer’s disease gene, found in only five ADSP cases and zero controls. Conclusions While we could not formally assess the CR1 frameshift mutation in Alzheimer’s disease (insufficient sample-size), we believe it merits investigating in a larger cohort. There remain thousands of potentially important genomic regions overlooked by short-read sequencing that are largely resolved by long-read technologies.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".