Cryptic splice site activation by rare GT/AG-creating variants in Genomics England blood RNA-seq (SpliceAI2 paper, auPRC)
Separate 3,065 RNA-seq-confirmed cryptic gains from 1,775,800 null GT/AG-creating variants in 5,435 rare-disease participants with WGS and blood RNA-seq.
Overview
An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.
Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.
5 recorded evaluations, 5 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.
Results
Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.
All evaluations
5 evaluations · 5 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Protocol: Cryptic splice site activation by rare GT/AG-creating variants in Genomics England blood RNA-seq (SpliceAI2 paper, auPRC) · Dataset: Genomics England rare-disease participants with WGS and blood RNA-seq (Jaganathan et al. 2026)
Sorted by AUPRC (all variants) (higher is better). The best value in each column is highlighted. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.
All 5 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources
Filter evaluations
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6.
Methods and evaluation design
Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations
Recorded evaluations
Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.
- AlphaGenome on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- AlphaGenome raw splice site score on Genomics England GT/AG (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- Pangolin on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- SpliceAI on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- SpliceAI2 on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
Baseline coverage
Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.
0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.
No execution recipe linked to this protocol. Recipe availability does not establish a completed evaluation.
- Author-reported evaluations
- 5
Literature evidence is not a Rewire measurement. Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.
Null control
Proposed control: requires review
Training-set class prior where supervised fitting is permitted
Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.
This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.
Conventional reference
Proposed control: requires review
Regularised classifier on simple permitted features, or protocol's conventional reference
Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.
This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.
Protocol coverage CSV (gzip) · Model evaluation matrix (gzip) · Source table (gzip) · Release and checksums (gzip)
Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.
Run instructions
No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this protocol. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.
Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions
Evidence
Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.
Evidence table
Inspect claims, sources and review details
Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.
One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.
0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|
No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.
Sources and history
Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked
1 source record and release history
- A unified framework for quantitative splicing and transcript prediction (Jaganathan et al., bioRxiv 2026) · Original source · bioRxiv preprint version 1, posted 2026-10-11; full-text PDF (57 pages)
Technical metadata and extraction receipts
Stable ID: rna-splicing-20261013-spliceai2-protocol-gel-gtag-detection
- areas
- dna-genomes; rna-transcriptomes
- contexts
- clinical_research
- protocol
- Same labelling pipeline as the GTEx GT/AG benchmark applied to Genomics England samples (novel junction only in carriers, from personalised diploid-genome alignments); auPRC of each model's score at the created site.
- version
- bioRxiv v1 Fig. 4g
- metric
- auprc
- metric direction
- higher
- source locator
- Main 'Contribution to rare genetic disease' paragraph 4; Methods 'Variant effect benchmarks' (GTEx and GEL GT/AG); Fig. 4g
- limitations
- Blood RNA-seq only: splicing changes in genes not expressed in blood are not observable, so nulls can include variants that splice in other tissues.; The GTEx rule that a cryptic gain is seen in more than one sample applies to GTEx only; the paper does not state a replacement rule for Genomics England.; Only overall auPRC is printed; no stratum or uncertainty values.; The rule-based motif-scoring baseline used for this use case (for example MaxEntScan) is not evaluated.; Developer-reported: the SpliceAI2 authors (Illumina) built the benchmark, chose comparator settings and ran every model; AlphaGenome was scored by co-authors at the University of Oxford.; Training overlap: SpliceAI2 was trained on all human genes except those on chromosomes 21 and 22, and the benchmark is genome-wide, so most variants lie in genes seen in training. Supplementary Table 1 does not list Genomics England data among the training sources.; The paper does not say whether essential splice variants were excluded from the Genomics England benchmark; the exclusion is stated for the GTEx and OpenSplice benchmarks (Fig. 1d).; No confidence intervals or resampling uncertainty are printed.; Preprint (bioRxiv v1), not peer reviewed.
Related records
- uses data: Genomics England rare-disease participants with WGS and blood RNA-seq (Jaganathan et al. 2026)
- assessment: AlphaGenome on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- assessment: AlphaGenome raw splice site score on Genomics England GT/AG (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- assessment: Pangolin on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- assessment: SpliceAI on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- assessment: SpliceAI2 on Genomics England GT/AG cryptic splice activation (auPRC, SpliceAI2 paper)
- assessed by: Select a patient-RNA splicing-variant validation workflow