Prioritizing genes for systematic variant effect mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: When rare missense variants are clinically interpreted as to their pathogenicity, most are classified as variants of uncertain significance (VUS). Although functional assays can provide strong evidence for variant classification, such results are generally unavailable. Multiplexed assays of variant effect can generate experimental 'variant effect maps' that score nearly all possible missense variants in selected protein targets for their impact on protein function. However, these efforts have not always prioritized proteins for which variant effect maps would have the greatest impact on clinical variant interpretation. RESULTS: Here, we mined databases of clinically interpreted variants and applied three strategies, each building on the previous, to prioritize genes for systematic functional testing of missense variation. The strategies ranked genes (i) by the number of unique missense VUS that had been reported to ClinVar; (ii) by movability- and reappearance-weighted impact scores, to give extra weight to reappearing, movable VUS and (iii) by difficulty-adjusted impact scores, to account for the more resource-intensive nature of generating variant effect maps for longer genes. Our results could be used to guide systematic functional testing of missense variation toward greater impact on clinical variant interpretation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code available at: https://github.com/rothlab/mave-gene-prioritization. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".