Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40437370›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2025

Single-cell data combined with phenotypes improves variant interpretation.

Timothy Chapman, Timo Lassmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Timothy ChapmanThe Kids Research Institute Australia, 15 Hospital Ave, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia.
Timo LassmannThe Kids Research Institute Australia, 15 Hospital Ave, Nedlands, WA, 6009, Australia. timo.lassmann@thekids.org.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole genome sequencing offers significant potential to improve the diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases by enabling the identification of thousands of rare, potentially pathogenic variants. Existing variant prioritisation tools can be complemented by approaches that incorporate phenotype specificity and provide contextual biological information, such as tissue or cell-type specificity. We hypothesised that integrating single-cell gene expression data into phenotype-specific models would improve the accuracy and interpretability of pathogenic variant prioritisation.

methodsTo test this hypothesis, we developed IMPPROVE, a new tool that constructs phenotype-specific ensemble models integrating CADD scores with bulk and single-cell gene expression data. We constructed a total of 1,866 Random Forest models for individual HPO terms, incorporating both bulk and single cell expression data.

resultsOur phenotype-specific models utilising expression data can better predict pathogenic variants in 90% of the phenotypes (HPO terms) considered. Using single-cell expression data instead of bulk benefited the models, significantly shifting the proportion of pathogenic variants that were correctly identified at a fixed false positive rate

conclusionsPhenotype-specific models that integrate gene expression data with CADD scores show great promise in improving variant prioritisation. In addition to improving diagnostic accuracy, these models offer insights into the underlying biological mechanisms of rare diseases. Enriching existing pathogenicity-related scores with gene expression datasets has the potential to advance personalised medicine through more accurate and interpretable variant prioritisation.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationPhenotypeSingle-Cell AnalysisGene Expression ProfilingHumansInterpretable modelsMachine learningRandom forestRare diseaseVariant prioritisationWhole Genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID40437370
PMCPMC12117811

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.