De Novo Assembly-Based Analysis of RPGR Exon ORF15 in an Indigenous African Cohort Overcomes Limitations of a Standard Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Data Analysis Pipeline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
exon ORF15 variants are one of the most frequent causes for inherited retinal disorders (IRDs), in particular retinitis pigmentosa. The low sequence complexity of this mutation hotspot makes it prone to indels and challenging for sequence data analysis. Whole-exome sequencing generally fails to provide adequate coverage in this region. Therefore, complementary methods are needed to avoid false positives as well as negative results. In this study, next-generation sequencing (NGS) was used to sequence long-range PCR amplicons for an IRD cohort of African ancestry. By developing a novel secondary analysis pipeline based on de novo assembly, we were able to avoid the miscalling of variants generated by standard NGS analysis tools. We identified pathogenic variants in 11 patients (13% of the cohort), two of which have not been reported previously. We provide a novel and alternative end-to-end secondary analysis pipeline for targeted NGS of ORF15 that is less prone to false positive and negative variant calls.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".