Determinants of functional burden pleiotropy and gene dosage responses across human traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copy number variants (CNVs) have large effects on complex traits, but they are rare and remain challenging to study. As a result, our understanding of biological functions linking gene dosage to complex traits remains limited, and whether these functions sensitive to gene dosage are similar to those underlying the effects of rare single nucleotide variants (SNVs) and common variants remains unknown. Methods: We developed FunBurd, a functional burden analysis, to test the association of CNVs aggregated within functional gene sets. We applied this approach in 500,000 individuals from the UK Biobank to associate 43 complex traits with CNVs disrupting 172 gene sets across tissues and cell types. We compared CNV findings with those from common variants and LoF (Loss of Function) SNVs in the same cohort using the same functional gene sets. Results: All 43 traits showed FDR significant associations with CNVs. Brain tissue and neuronal cell-types showed the highest levels of pleiotropy. Most of the functional gene set associations could, in part, be explained by genetic constraint, except for brain related processes. Shared genetic contributions between pairs of traits were concordant across types of variants, but on average 2-fold higher, for rare CNVs and SNVs compared to common variants.Functional enrichment across traits found limited overlap between CNVs and common variants. Moreover, the effects of deletions and duplications were negatively correlated for most traits.In conclusion, we present new methods to separate the contributions of genetic constraint and gene function to the associations of CNVs with complex traits. Overall, the functional convergence between different types of variants -even between deletions and duplications-remains limited.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".