Systematic Evaluation of Somatic Contamination in Germline Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large-scale genomic initiatives like the UK Biobank (UKB) have revolutionized our understanding of human disease. These studies typically assume that blood-derived DNA faithfully reflects an individual’s germline genome. However, this assumption is challenged by somatic mutations arising from processes like clonal hematopoiesis. Although standard bioinformatics pipelines employ variant allele frequency (VAF)-based filtering to mitigate such contamination, the efficacy of these approaches requires systematic evaluation. By systematically analyzing whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data from large cohorts, including the UK Biobank, The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and the 1000 Genomes Project, we revealed critical limitations in current filtering methodologies. We found that the mutational spectrum of rare “germline” variants is highly similar to that of somatic mutations. Furthermore, we uncovered these variants show significant associations with phenotypes such as age, sex, and smoking status, established drivers of somatic mutagenesis. This persistent somatic contamination introduces substantial confounder effects, potentially generating spurious associations and reverse causality in genetic studies. Our work underscores the urgent reconsideration of two fundamental aspects of genomic research: (1) refinement of variant filtering strategies to better distinguish true germline variants from somatic contaminants, and (2) incorporation of somatic mutagenesis factors as essential covariates in study design. Our findings provide a basic framework for improving the accuracy and interpretability of large-scale genomic studies.
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 | 0.028 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".