Back

Unveiling the Hidden Rules: Enhancing NMD Prediction for Protein-Truncating Variants

Egab, I.; Schmidt, J.; Cortazar, M.; Xu, J.; Orchard, P.; Bozkurt-Yozgatli, T.; Dawood, M.; Koh, J.; Mestroni, L.; Taylor, M.; Yi, S. S.; Calame, D.; Posey, J.; Gibbs, R. A.; Boerwinkle, E.; Reiner, A. P.; de Vries, P. S.; Morrison, A.; Shaw, C. A.; Lupski, J. R.; Carvalho, C. M. B.; Montgomery, S. B.; Jagannathan, S.; Coban Akdemir, Z.

2026-07-01 genomics
10.64898/2026.06.26.734884 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Nonsense-mediated decay (NMD) is a conserved RNA quality-control pathway that degrades transcripts containing premature termination codons. Because roughly a third of pathogenic variants in ClinVar can lead to truncated protein synthesis, predicting whether such transcripts undergo NMD is central to interpreting variant effects, yet the canonical 50-55 nucleotide rule explains only about half of observed outcome variability. Using paired whole-genome and RNA-sequencing from 10,306 individual samples in the Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program, we quantified NMD efficiency for 5,749 germline truncating variants via allele-specific expression and trained a gradient-boosting classifier, TrunCat, that distinguished NMD-sensitive from NMD-escape transcripts with ~78% ROC-AUC (Receiver Operating Characteristic - Area Under the Curve). A reduced model using the ten features with the highest mean SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) value as a measure of each feature's average contribution to predictions nearly matched this performance. Applied across large variant databases and a rare-disease cohort, the model produced NMD outcome predictions, with variants of uncertain significance showing higher predicted escape than pathogenic ones. This framework confirms the canonical rule, identifies non-canonical determinants, and offers a scalable resource for interpreting protein-truncating variants.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.