Data from: Identifying pathogenicity of human variants via paralog-based yeast complementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To better understand the health implications of personal genomes, we now face a largely unmet challenge to identify functional variants within disease-associated genes. Functional variants can be identified by trans-species complementation, e.g., by failure to rescue a yeast strain bearing a mutation in an orthologous human gene. Although orthologous complementation assays are powerful predictors of pathogenic variation, they are available for only a few percent of human disease genes. Here we systematically examine the question of whether complementation assays based on paralogy relationships can expand the number of human disease genes with functional variant detection assays. We tested over 1,000 paralogous human-yeast gene pairs for complementation, yielding 34 complementation relationships, of which 33 (97%) were novel. We found that paralog-based assays identified disease variants with success on par with that of orthology-based assays. Combining all homology-based assay results, we found that complementation can often identify pathogenic variants outside the homologous sequence region, presumably because of global effects on protein folding or stability. Within our search space, paralogy-based complementation more than doubled the number of human disease genes with a yeast-based complementation assay for disease variation.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.023 |
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".