ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
On the Analysis of Protein Genetic Architecture: Response to "Protein sequence landscapes are not so simple".
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We recently reanalyzed 20 combinatorial mutagenesis datasets using a novel reference-free analysis (RFA) method and showed that high-order epistasis contributes negligibly to protein sequence-function relationships in every case. Dupic, Phillips, and Desai (DPD) commented on a preprint of our work. In our published paper, we addressed all the major issues they raised, but we respond directly to them here. 1) DPD's claim that RFA is equivalent to estimating reference-based analysis (RBA) models by regression neglects fundamental differences in how the two formalisms dissect the causal relationship between sequence and function. It also misinterprets the observation that using regression to estimate any truncated model of genetic architecture will always yield the same predicted phenotypes and variance partition; the resulting estimates correspond to those of the RFA formalism but are inaccurate representations of the true RBA model. 2) DPD's claim that high-order epistasis is widespread and significant while somehow explaining little phenotypic variance is an artifact of two strong biases in the use of regression to estimate RBA models: this procedure underestimates the phenotypic variance explained by RBA epistatic terms while at the same time inflating the magnitude of individual terms. 3) DPD erroneously claim that RFA is "exactly equivalent" to Fourier analysis (FA) and background-averaged analysis (BA). This error arises because DPD used an incorrect mathematical definition of RFA and were misled by a simple numerical relationship among the models that only holds only for the simplest kinds of datasets. 4) DPD argue that using a nonlinear transformation to account for global nonlinearities in sequence-function relationships is often unnecessary and may artifactually absorb specific epistatic interactions. We show that nonspecific epistasis caused by a limited dynamic range affects datasets of all types, even when the phenotype is represented on a free-energy scale. Moreover, using a nonlinear transformation in a joint fitting procedure does not underestimate specific epistasis under realistic conditions, even if the data are not affected by nonspecific epistasis. The conclusions of our work therefore hold: the genetic architecture of all 20 protein datasets we analyzed can be efficiently and accurately described in an RFA framework by first-order amino acid effects and pairwise interactions with a simple model of global nonlinearity. We are grateful for DPD's commentary, which helped us improve our paper.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.