Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Larson, E.

Publications and source records attributed to Larson, E..

21 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Systematic analysis of dark and camouflaged genes: disease-relevant genes hiding in plain sight

BackgroundThe human genome contains dark gene regions that cannot be adequately assembled or aligned using standard short-read sequencing technologies, preventing researchers from identifying mutations within these gene regions that may be relevant to human disease. Here, we identify regions that are dark by depth (few mappable reads) and others that are camouflaged (ambiguous alignment), and we assess how well long-read technologies resolve these regions. We further present an algorithm to resolve most camouflaged regions (including in short-read data) and apply it to the Alzheimers Disease Sequencing Project (ADSP; 13142 samples), as a proof of principle.\n\nResultsBased on standard whole-genome lllumina sequencing data, we identified 37873 dark regions in 5857 gene bodies (3635 protein-coding) from pathways important to human health, development, and reproduction. Of the 5857 gene bodies, 494 (8.4%) were 100% dark (142 protein-coding) and 2046 (34.9%) were [≥]5% dark (628 protein-coding). Exactly 2757 dark regions were in protein-coding exons (CDS) across 744 genes. Long-read sequencing technologies from 10x Genomics, PacBio, and Oxford Nanopore Technologies reduced dark CDS regions to approximately 45.1%, 33.3%, and 18.2% respectively. Applying our algorithm to the ADSP, we rescued 4622 exonic variants from 501 camouflaged genes, including a rare, ten-nucleotide frameshift deletion in CR1, a top Alzheimers disease gene, found in only five ADSP cases and zero controls.\n\nConclusionsWhile we could not formally assess the CR1 frameshift mutation in Alzheimers disease (insufficient sample-size), we believe it merits investigating in a larger cohort. There remain thousands of potentially important genomic regions overlooked by short-read sequencing that are largely resolved by long-read technologies.

genomics↗

MEG/EEG group study with MNE: recommendations, quality assessments and best practices

Cognitive neuroscience questions are commonly tested with experiments that involve a cohort of subjects. The cohort can consist of a handful of subjects for small studies to hundreds or thousands of subjects in open datasets.\n\nWhile there exist various online resources to get started with the analysis of magnetoencephalography (MEG) or electroencephalography (EEG) data, such educational materials are usually restricted to the analysis of a single subject. This is in part because data from larger group studies are harder to share, but also analyses of such data are often require subject-specific decisions which are hard to document.\n\nThis work presents the results obtained by the reanalysis of an open dataset from Wakeman and Henson (2015) using the MNE software package. The analysis covers preprocessing steps, quality assurance steps, sensor space analysis of evoked responses, source localization, and statistics in both sensor and source space. Results with possible alternative strategies are presented and discussed at different stages such as the use of high-pass filtering versus baseline correction, tSSS versus SSS, the use of a minimum norm inverse versus LCMV beamformer, and the use of univariate or multivariate statistics. This aims to provide a comparative study of different stages of M/EEG analysis pipeline on the same dataset, with open access to all of the scripts necessary to reproduce this analysis.

neuroscience↗

Data-based, synthesis-driven: setting the agenda for computational ecology

Computational thinking is the integration of algorithms, software, and data, to solve general questions in a field. Computation ecology has the potential to transform the way ecologists think about the integration of data and models. As the practice is gaining prominence as a way to conduct ecological research, it is important to reflect on what its agenda could be, and how it fits within the broader landscape of ecological research. In this contribution, we suggest areas in which empirical ecologists, modellers, and the emerging community of computational ecologists could engage in a constructive dialogue to build on one anothers expertise; specifically, about the need to make predictions from models actionable, about the best standards to represent ecological data, and about the proper ways to credit data collection and data reuse. We discuss how training can be amended to improve computational literacy.

ecology↗