MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403384574 · doi:10.1186/s13073-024-01383-8

A validated heart-specific model for splice-disrupting variants in childhood heart disease

2024· article· en· W4403384574 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Lesurf, Jeroen Breckpot, Jade Bouwmeester, Nour Hanafi, Anjali Jain, Yijing Liang, Tanya Papaz, Jane Lougheed, Tapas Mondal, Mahmoud Alsalehi, Luis Altamirano‐Diaz, Erwin Oechslin, Enrique Audain, Gregor Dombrowsky, Alex V. Postma, Odilia I. Woudstra, Berto J. Bouma, Marc‐Phillip Hitz, Connie R. Bezzina, Gillian M. Blue, David S. Winlaw, Seema Mital

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchKingston Health Sciences CentreHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaWellcome TrustHospital for Sick ChildrenEuropean Bioinformatics InstituteNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsspliceProbandRNA splicingAlternative splicingGeneticsExonMedicineGeneExon skippingBiologyComputational biologyBioinformaticsMutationRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital anomaly. Almost 90% of isolated cases have an unexplained genetic etiology after clinical testing. Non-canonical splice variants that disrupt mRNA splicing through the loss or creation of exon boundaries are not routinely captured and/or evaluated by standard clinical genetic tests. Recent computational algorithms such as SpliceAI have shown an ability to predict such variants, but are not specific to cardiac-expressed genes and transcriptional isoforms. METHODS: We used genome sequencing (GS) (n = 1101 CHD probands) and myocardial RNA-Sequencing (RNA-Seq) (n = 154 CHD and n = 43 cardiomyopathy probands) to identify and validate splice disrupting variants, and to develop a heart-specific model for canonical and non-canonical splice variants that can be applied to patients with CHD and cardiomyopathy. Two thousand five hundred seventy GS samples from the Medical Genome Reference Bank were analyzed as healthy controls. RESULTS: Of 8583 rare DNA splice-disrupting variants initially identified using SpliceAI, 100 were associated with altered splice junctions in the corresponding patient myocardium affecting 95 genes. Using strength of myocardial gene expression and genome-wide DNA variant features that were confirmed to affect splicing in myocardial RNA, we trained a machine learning model for predicting cardiac-specific splice-disrupting variants (AUC 0.86 on internal validation). In a validation set of 48 CHD probands, the cardiac-specific model outperformed a SpliceAI model alone (AUC 0.94 vs 0.67 respectively). Application of this model to an additional 947 CHD probands with only GS data identified 1% patients with canonical and 11% patients with non-canonical splice-disrupting variants in CHD genes. Forty-nine percent of predicted splice-disrupting variants were intronic and > 10 bp from existing splice junctions. The burden of high-confidence splice-disrupting variants in CHD genes was 1.28-fold higher in CHD cases compared with healthy controls. CONCLUSIONS: A new cardiac-specific in silico model was developed using complementary GS and RNA-Seq data that improved genetic yield by identifying a significant burden of non-canonical splice variants associated with CHD that would not be detectable through panel or exome sequencing.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207