Rare instances of non-random dropout with the monochrome multiplex qPCR assay for mitochondrial DNA copy number
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNA-CN) is a proxy for mitochondrial function and has been of increasing interest to the mitochondrial research community. There are a number of ways to measure mtDNA-CN, ranging from qPCR to whole genome sequencing [1]. A recent article in the Journal of Molecular Diagnostics [2] described a novel method for measuring mtDNA-CN that is both inexpensive and reproducible. After adapting the assay for use in our lab, we have found it to be reproducible and well-correlated with mtDNA-CN derived from whole genome sequencing. However, certain individuals show poor concordance between the two measures, particularly individuals with qPCR mtDNA-CN measurements >3 standard deviations below the sample mean, which corresponds to roughly 1% of assayed individuals (Figure 1). After examining whole genome sequencing data, this seems to be due to specific polymorphisms within the D-loop primer region, at positions MT 338, 340, 452, 457, 458, 460, 461, 466, and 467. All individuals with a variant in at least one of these positions have non-concordant mtDNA-CN measurements. Meanwhile, variants observed at other positions within the primer region do not appear to cause dropout.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".