Comparing the predictors of mutability among healthy human tissues inferred from mutations in single-cell genome data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying mutation in healthy somatic tissues is the 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 3 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 vs soma and the mechanisms underlying early tumorigenesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".