Optical Genome Mapping Enables Detection and Accurate Sizing of RFC1 Repeat Expansions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recessive Short Tandem Repeat expansion in RFC1 has been found to be associated with cerebellar ataxia, neuropathy and vestibular areflexia syndrome (CANVAS), and to be a frequent cause of late onset ataxia and sensory neuropathy. The usual procedure for sizing these expansions is based on Southern Blotting (SB), a time-consuming and a relatively imprecise technique. In this paper, we compare SB with Optical Genome Mapping (OGM), a method for detecting Structural Variants (SVs) based on the measurement of distances between fluorescently labelled probes, for the diagnosis of RFC1 CANVAS and disease spectrum. The two methods are applied to 17 CANVAS patients’ blood samples and resulting sizes compared, showing a good agreement. Further, long-read sequencing is used for two patients to investigate the agreement of sizes with either SB or OGM. Our study concludes that OGM represents a viable alternative to SB, allowing for a simpler technique, a more precise sizing of the expansion and ability to expand analysis of SV in the entire genome as opposed to SB which is a locus specific method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".