MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115521846 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0244075

Analysis of copy number variation in dogs implicates genomic structural variation in the development of anterior cruciate ligament rupture

2020· article· en· W3115521846 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily E. Binversie, Lauren Baker, Corinne D. Engelman, Zhengling Hao, John J. Moran, Alexander M. Piazza, Susannah J. Sample, Peter Muir

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institutes of HealthWisconsin Alumni Research FoundationUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonAmerican Kennel Club Canine Health FoundationMorris Animal FoundationFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Copy-number variationBiologyAnterior cruciate ligamentCopy number analysisAnatomyEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGenomeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is an important condition of the human knee. Second ruptures are common and societal costs are substantial. Canine cranial cruciate ligament (CCL) rupture closely models the human disease. CCL rupture is common in the Labrador Retriever (5.79% prevalence), ~100-fold more prevalent than in humans. Labrador Retriever CCL rupture is a polygenic complex disease, based on genome-wide association study (GWAS) of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. Dissection of genetic variation in complex traits can be enhanced by studying structural variation, including copy number variants (CNVs). Dogs are an ideal model for CNV research because of reduced genetic variability within breeds and extensive phenotypic diversity across breeds. We studied the genetic etiology of CCL rupture by association analysis of CNV regions (CNVRs) using 110 case and 164 control Labrador Retrievers. CNVs were called from SNPs using three different programs (PennCNV, CNVPartition, and QuantiSNP). After quality control, CNV calls were combined to create CNVRs using ParseCNV and an association analysis was performed. We found no strong effect CNVRs but found 46 small effect (max(T) permutation P<0.05) CCL rupture associated CNVRs in 22 autosomes; 25 were deletions and 21 were duplications. Of the 46 CCL rupture associated CNVRs, we identified 39 unique regions. Thirty four were identified by a single calling algorithm, 3 were identified by two calling algorithms, and 2 were identified by all three algorithms. For 42 of the associated CNVRs, frequency in the population was <10% while 4 occurred at a frequency in the population ranging from 10-25%. Average CNVR length was 198,872bp and CNVRs covered 0.11 to 0.15% of the genome. All CNVRs were associated with case status. CNVRs did not overlap previous canine CCL rupture risk loci identified by GWAS. Associated CNVRs contained 152 annotated genes; 12 CNVRs did not have genes mapped to CanFam3.1. Using pathway analysis, a cluster of 19 homeobox domain transcript regulator genes was associated with CCL rupture (P = 6.6E-13). This gene cluster influences cranial-caudal body pattern formation during embryonic limb development. Clustered genes were found in 3 CNVRs on chromosome 14 (HoxA), 28 (NKX6-2), and 36 (HoxD). When analysis was limited to deletion CNVRs, the association was strengthened (P = 8.7E-16). This study suggests a component of the polygenic risk of CCL rupture in Labrador Retrievers is associated with small effect CNVs and may include aspects of stifle morphology regulated by homeobox domain transcript regulator genes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207