MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280529747 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abl3819

Recombination affects allele-specific expression of deleterious variants in human populations

2022· article· en· W4280529747 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle P. Harwood, Isabel Alves, Hilary A. Edgington, Mawussé Agbessi, Vanessa Bruat, David Soave, Fabien C. Lamaze, Marie-Julie Favé, Philip Awadalla

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversité LavalOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsSelection (genetic algorithm)AlleleRecombinationPopulationGenomeNatural selectionGenotypeEvolutionary biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How the genetic composition of a population changes through stochastic processes, such as genetic drift, in combination with deterministic processes, such as selection, is critical to understanding how phenotypes vary in space and time. Here, we show how evolutionary forces affecting selection, including recombination and effective population size, drive genomic patterns of allele-specific expression (ASE). Integrating tissue-specific genotypic and transcriptomic data from 1500 individuals from two different cohorts, we demonstrate that ASE is less often observed in regions of low recombination, and loci in high or normal recombination regions are more efficient at using ASE to underexpress harmful mutations. By tracking genetic ancestry, we discriminate between ASE variability due to past demographic effects, including subsequent bottlenecks, versus local environment. We observe that ASE is not randomly distributed along the genome and that population parameters influencing the efficacy of natural selection alter ASE levels genome wide.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207