Fitness Effects of Mutations: An Assessment of PROVEAN Predictions Using Mutation Accumulation Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting fitness in natural populations is a major challenge in biology. It may be possible to leverage fast-accumulating genomic data sets to infer the fitness effects of mutant alleles, allowing evolutionary questions to be addressed in any organism. In this paper, we investigate the utility of one such tool, called PROVEAN. This program compares a query sequence with existing data to provide an alignment-based score for any protein variant, with scores categorized as neutral or deleterious based on a pre-set threshold. PROVEAN has been used widely in evolutionary studies, for example, to estimate mutation load in natural populations, but has not been formally tested as a predictor of aggregate mutational effects on fitness. Using three large published data sets on the genome sequences of laboratory mutation accumulation lines, we assessed how well PROVEAN predicted the actual fitness patterns observed, relative to other metrics. In most cases, we find that a simple count of the total number of mutant proteins is a better predictor of fitness than the number of proteins with variants scored as deleterious by PROVEAN. We also find that the sum of all mutant protein scores explains variation in fitness better than the number of mutant proteins in one of the data sets. We discuss the implications of these results for studies of populations in the wild.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".