REViewer: Haplotype-resolved visualization of read alignments in and around tandem repeats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Expansions of short tandem repeats are the cause of many neurogenetic disorders including familial amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Huntington disease, and many others. Multiple methods have been recently developed that can identify repeat expansions in whole genome or exome sequencing data. Despite the widely-recognized need for visual assessment of variant calls in clinical settings, current computational tools lack the ability to produce such visualizations for repeat expansions. Expanded repeats are difficult to visualize because they correspond to large insertions relative to the reference genome and involve many misaligning and ambiguously aligning reads. Results We implemented REViewer, a computational method for visualization of sequencing data in genomic regions containing long repeat expansions. To generate a read pileup, REViewer reconstructs local haplotype sequences and distributes reads to these haplotypes in a way that is most consistent with the fragment lengths and evenness of read coverage. To create appropriate training materials for onboarding new users, we performed a concordance study involving 12 scientists involved in STR research. We used the results of this study to create a user guide that describes the basic principles of using REViewer as well as a guide to the typical features of read pileups that correspond to low confidence repeat genotype calls. Additionally, we demonstrated that REViewer can be used to annotate clinically-relevant repeat interruptions by comparing visual assessment results of 44 FMR1 repeat alleles with the results of triplet repeat primed PCR. For 38 of these alleles, the results of visual assessment were consistent with triplet repeat primed PCR. Conclusions Read pileup plots generated by REViewer offer an intuitive way to visualize sequencing data in regions containing long repeat expansions. Laboratories can use REViewer to assess the quality of repeat genotype calls as well as to visually detect interruptions or other imperfections in the repeat sequence and the surrounding flanking regions.
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 | 0.014 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.095 | 0.031 |
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".