High-throughput muscle fiber typing from RNA sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Skeletal muscle fiber type distribution has implications for human health, muscle function, and performance. This knowledge has been gathered using labor-intensive and costly methodology that limited these studies. Here, we present a method based on muscle tissue RNA sequencing data (totRNAseq) to estimate the distribution of skeletal muscle fiber types from frozen human samples, allowing for a larger number of individuals to be tested. Methods By using single-nuclei RNA sequencing (snRNAseq) data as a reference, cluster expression signatures were produced by averaging gene expression of cluster gene markers and then applying these to totRNAseq data and inferring muscle fiber nuclei type via linear matrix decomposition. This estimate was then compared with fiber type distribution measured by ATPase staining or myosin heavy chain protein isoform distribution of 62 muscle samples in two independent cohorts (n = 39 and 22). Results The correlation between the sequencing-based method and the other two were rATPas = 0.44 [0.13–0.67], [95% CI], and rmyosin = 0.83 [0.61–0.93], with p = 5.70 × 10–3 and 2.00 × 10–6, respectively. The deconvolution inference of fiber type composition was accurate even for very low totRNAseq sequencing depths, i.e., down to an average of ~ 10,000 paired-end reads. Conclusions This new method ( https://github.com/OlaHanssonLab/PredictFiberType ) consequently allows for measurement of fiber type distribution of a larger number of samples using totRNAseq in a cost and labor-efficient way. It is now feasible to study the association between fiber type distribution and e.g. health outcomes in large well-powered 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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".