Protein-coding repeat polymorphisms strongly shape diverse human phenotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hundreds of the proteins encoded in human genomes contain domains that vary in size or copy number due to variable numbers of tandem repeats (VNTRs) in protein-coding exons. VNTRs have eluded analysis by the molecular methods-SNP arrays and high-throughput sequencing-used in large-scale human genetic studies to date; thus, the relationships of VNTRs to most human phenotypes are unknown. We developed ways to estimate VNTR lengths from whole-exome sequencing data, identify the SNP haplotypes on which VNTR alleles reside, and use imputation to project these haplotypes into abundant SNP data. We analyzed 118 protein-altering VNTRs in 415,280 UK Biobank participants for association with 791 phenotypes. Analysis revealed some of the strongest associations of common variants with human phenotypes including height, hair morphology, and biomarkers of human health; for example, a VNTR encoding 13-44 copies of a 19-amino-acid repeat in the chondroitin sulfate domain of aggrecan (ACAN) associated with height variation of 3.4 centimeters (s.e. 0.3 cm). Incorporating large-effect VNTRs into analysis also made it possible to map many additional effects at the same loci: for the blood biomarker lipoprotein(a), for example, analysis of the kringle IV-2 VNTR within the LPA gene revealed that 18 coding SNPs and the VNTR in LPA explained 90% of lipoprotein(a) heritability in Europeans, enabling insights about population differences and epidemiological significance of this clinical biomarker. These results point to strong, cryptic effects of highly polymorphic common structural variants that have largely eluded molecular analyses to date.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".