MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313458604 · doi:10.1101/2023.01.02.522522

Systematic assessment of the contribution of structural variants to inherited retinal diseases

2023· preprint· en· W4313458604 on OpenAlexaff
Shu Wen, Meng C. Wang, Xinye Qian, Yumei Li, Keqing Wang, Jongsu Choi, Mark E. Pennesi, Paul Yang, Molly Marra, Robert K. Koenekoop, Irma López, Anna Matynia, Michael B. Gorin, Ruifang Sui, Fengxia Yao, Kerry Goetz, Fernanda Belga Ottoni Porto, Rui Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of HealthResearch to Prevent Blindness
KeywordsGeneticsSanger sequencingExome sequencingBiologyExomeGeneCopy-number variationDNA sequencingDisease gene identificationCandidate geneGenomeMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Despite increasing success in determining genetic diagnosis for patients with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs), mutations in about 30% of the IRD cases remain unclear or unsettled after targeted gene panel or whole exome sequencing. In this study, we aimed to investigate the contributions of structural variants (SVs) to settling the molecular diagnosis of IRD with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). A cohort of 755 IRD patients whose pathogenic mutations remain undefined was subjected to WGS. Four SV calling algorithms including include MANTA, DELLY, LUMPY, and CNVnator were used to detect SVs throughout the genome. All SVs identified by any one of these four algorithms were included for further analysis. AnnotSV was used to annotate these SVs. SVs that overlap with known IRD-associated genes were examined with sequencing coverage, junction reads, and discordant read pairs. PCR followed by Sanger sequencing was used to further confirm the SVs and identify the breakpoints. Segregation of the candidate pathogenic alleles with the disease was performed when possible. In total, sixteen candidate pathogenic SVs were identified in sixteen families, including deletions and inversions, representing 2.1% of patients with previously unsolved IRDs. Autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and X-linked inheritance of disease-causing SVs were observed in 12 different genes. Among these, SVs in CLN3, EYS, PRPF31 were found in multiple families. Our study suggests that the contribution of SVs detected by short-read WGS is about 0.25% of our IRD patient cohort and is significantly lower than that of single nucleotide changes and small insertions and deletions.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207