Purifying selection on noncoding deletions of human regulatory loci detected using their cellular pleiotropy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic deletions provide a powerful loss-of-function model in noncoding regions to assess the role of purifying selection on genetic variation. Regulatory element function is characterized by nonuniform tissue and cell type activity, necessarily linking the study of fitness consequences from regulatory variants to their corresponding cellular activity. We generated a callset of deletions from genomes in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI) and used deletions from The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium (1000GP) in order to examine whether purifying selection preserves noncoding sites of chromatin accessibility marked by DNase I hypersensitivity (DHS), histone modification (enhancer, transcribed, Polycomb-repressed, heterochromatin), and chromatin loop anchors. To examine this in a cellular activity-aware manner, we developed a statistical method, pleiotropy ratio score (PlyRS), which calculates a correlation-adjusted count of "cellular pleiotropy" for each noncoding base pair by analyzing shared regulatory annotations across tissues and cell types. By comparing real deletion PlyRS values to simulations in a length-matched framework and by using genomic covariates in analyses, we found that purifying selection acts to preserve both DHS and enhancer noncoding sites. However, we did not find evidence of purifying selection for noncoding transcribed, Polycomb-repressed, or heterochromatin sites beyond that of the noncoding background. Additionally, we found evidence that purifying selection is acting on chromatin loop integrity by preserving colocalized CTCF binding sites. At regions of DHS, enhancer, and CTCF within chromatin loop anchors, we found evidence that both sites of activity specific to a particular tissue or cell type and sites of cellularly pleiotropic activity are preserved by selection.
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 | 0.001 | 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".