MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389117916 · doi:10.1101/2023.11.28.569048

Comparing the predictors of mutability among healthy human tissues inferred from mutations in single cell genome data

2023· preprint· en· W4389117916 on OpenAlexafffund
Madeleine Oman, Rob W. Ness

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGermlineEpigeneticsGeneticsGermline mutationGenomeMutationContext (archaeology)Mutation rateMutation AccumulationSomatic cellComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studying mutation in healthy somatic tissues is key for understanding the genesis of cancer and other genetic diseases. Mutation rate varies from site to site in the human genome by up to 100-fold and is influenced by numerous epigenetic and genetic factors including GC content, trinucleotide sequence context, and DNAse accessibility. These factors influence mutation at both local and regional scales and are often interrelated with one another, meaning that predicting mutability or uncovering its drivers requires modelling multiple factors and scales simultaneously. Historically, most investigations have focused either on analyzing the local sequence scale through triplet signatures or on examining the impact of epigenetic processes at larger scales, but not both concurrently. Additionally, sequencing technology limitations have restricted analyses of healthy mutations to coding regions (RNA-seq) or to those that have been influenced by selection (e.g. bulk samples from cancer tissue). Here we leverage single cell mutations and present a comprehensive analysis of epigenetic and genetic factors at multiple scales in the germline and three healthy somatic tissues. We create models that predict mutability with on average 2% error, and find up to 63-fold variation among sites within the same tissue. We observe varying degrees of similarity between tissues: the mutability of genomic positions was 93.4% similar between liver and germline tissues, but sites in germline and skin were only 85.9% similar. We observe both universal and tissue-specific mutagenic processes in healthy tissues, with implications for understanding the maintenance of germline versus soma and the mechanisms underlying early tumorigenesis. Summary Mutations in healthy tissues can reveal how genetic diseases originate. In this study, we explore how mutation rates vary across the human genome and what influences these variations. We leverage advanced single-cell analysis to analyze genetic and epigenetic factors in germline and three healthy tissues. We trained models that exhibit high accuracy and discover large variation within the same tissue. We also identified differences in mutability between tissues, suggesting both universal and tissue-specific mutation patterns with implications for understanding oncogenesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→