Mutation Edgotype Drives Fitness Effect in Human
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missense mutations are known to perturb protein-protein interaction networks (known as interactome networks) in different ways. However, it remains unknown how different interactome perturbation patterns ("edgotypes") impact organismal fitness. Here, we estimate the fitness effect of missense mutations with different interactome perturbation patterns in human, by calculating the fractions of neutral and deleterious mutations that do not disrupt PPIs ("quasi-wild-type"), or disrupt PPIs either by disrupting the binding interface ("edgetic") or by disrupting overall protein stability ("quasi-null"). We first map pathogenic mutations and common non-pathogenic mutations onto homology-based three-dimensional structural models of proteins and protein-protein interactions in human. Next, we perform structure-based calculations to classify each mutation as either quasi-wild-type, edgetic, or quasi-null. Using our predicted as well as experimentally determined interactome perturbation patterns, we estimate that >∼40% of quasi-wild-type mutations are effectively neutral and the remaining are mostly mildly deleterious, that >∼75% of edgetic mutations are only mildly deleterious, and that up to ∼75% of quasi-null mutations may be strongly detrimental. These estimates are the first such estimates of fitness effect for different network perturbation patterns in any interactome. Our results suggest that while mutations that do not disrupt the interactome tend to be effectively neutral, the majority of human PPIs are under strong purifying selection and the stability of most human proteins is essential to human life.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it