A comparative medical genomics approach may facilitate the interpretation of rare missense variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the degree to which likely causal missense variants of single-locus traits in domesticated species have features suggestive of pathogenicity in a human genomic context. METHODS: We extracted missense variants from the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Animals database for nine animals (cat, cattle, chicken, dog, goat, horse, pig, rabbit and sheep), mapped coordinates to the human reference genome and annotated variants using genome analysis tools. We also searched a private commercial laboratory database of genetic testing results from >400 000 individuals with suspected rare disorders. RESULTS: Of 339 variants that were mappable to the same residue and gene in the human genome, 56 had been previously classified with respect to pathogenicity: 31 (55.4%) pathogenic/likely pathogenic, 1 (1.8%) benign/likely benign and 24 (42.9%) uncertain/other. The odds ratio for a pathogenic/likely pathogenic classification in ClinVar was 7.0 (95% CI 4.1 to 12.0, p<0.0001), compared with all other germline missense variants in these same 220 genes. The remaining 283 variants disproportionately had allele frequencies and REVEL scores that supported pathogenicity. CONCLUSION: Cross-species comparisons could facilitate the interpretation of rare missense variation. These results provide further support for comparative medical genomics approaches that connect big data initiatives in human and veterinary genetics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".