Power analyses to inform Duplex Sequencing study designs for <scp>MutaMouse</scp> liver and bone marrow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regulatory genetic toxicology testing is essential for identifying potentially mutagenic hazards. Duplex Sequencing (DS) is an error‐corrected next‐generation sequencing technology that provides substantial advantages for mutation analysis over conventional mutagenicity assays including: improved accuracy of mutation detection, ability to measure changes in mutation spectrum, and applicability across diverse biological models. To apply DS for regulatory toxicology testing, power analyses are required to determine suitable sample sizes and study designs. In this study, we explored study designs to achieve sufficient power for various effect sizes in chemical mutagenicity assessment. We collected data from MutaMouse bone marrow and liver samples that were analyzed by DS using TwinStrand's Mouse Mutagenesis Panel. Average duplex reads achieved in two separates studies on liver and bone marrow were 8.4 × 10 8 (± 7.4 × 10 7 ) and 9.5 × 10 8 (± 1.0 × 10 8 ), respectively. Baseline mean mutation frequencies (MF) were 4.6 × 10 −8 (± 6.7 × 10 −9 ) and 4.6 × 10 −8 (± 1.1 × 10 −8 ), with estimated standard deviations for the animal‐to‐animal random effect of 0.15 and 0.20, for liver and bone marrow, respectively. We conducted simulation analyses based on these empirically derived parameters. We found that a sample size of four animals per group is sufficient to obtain over 80% power to detect a two‐fold change in MF relative to baseline. In addition, we estimated the minimal total number of informative duplex bases sequenced with different sample sizes required to retain power for various effect sizes. Our work provides foundational data for establishing suitable study designs for mutagenicity testing using DS.
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".