What Was I Thinking? Eye-Tracking Experiments Underscore the Bias that Architecture Exerts on Nuclear Grading in Prostate Cancer.

We previously reported that nuclear grade assignment of prostate carcinomas is subject to a cognitive bias induced by the tumor architecture. Here, we asked whether this bias is mediated by the non-conscious selection of nuclei that "match the expectation" induced by the inadvertent glance at the tumor architecture. 20 pathologists were asked to grade nuclei in high power fields of 20 prostate carcinomas displayed on a computer screen. Unknown to the pathologists, each carcinoma was shown twice, once before a background of a low grade, tubule-rich carcinoma and once before the background of a high grade, solid carcinoma. Eye tracking allowed to identify which nuclei the pathologists fixated during the 8 second projection period. For all 20 pathologists, nuclear grade assignment was significantly biased by tumor architecture. Pathologists tended to fixate on bigger, darker, and more irregular nuclei when those were projected before kigh grade, solid carcinomas than before low grade, tubule-rich carcinomas (and vice versa). However, the morphometric differences of the selected nuclei accounted for only 11% of the architecture-induced bias, suggesting that it can only to a small part be explained by the unconscious fixation on nuclei that "match the expectation". In conclusion, selection of « matching nuclei » represents an unconscious effort to vindicate the gravitation of nuclear grades towards the tumor architecture.

The branch-site test of positive selection is surprisingly robust but lacks power under synonymous substitution saturation and variation in GC

Positive selection is widely estimated from protein coding sequence alignments by the nonsynonymous-to-synonymous ratio omega. Increasingly elaborate codon models are used in a likelihood framework for this estimation. Although there is widespread concern about the robustness of the estimation of the omega ratio, more efforts are needed to estimate this robustness, especially in the context of complex models. Here, we focused on the branch-site codon model. We investigated its robustness on a large set of simulated data. First, we investigated the impact of sequence divergence. We found evidence of underestimation of the synonymous substitution rate for values as small as 0.5, with a slight increase in false positives for the branch-site test. When dS increases further, underestimation of dS is worse, but false positives decrease. Interestingly, the detection of true positives follows a similar distribution, with a maximum for intermediary values of dS. Thus, high dS is more of a concern for a loss of power (false negatives) than for false positives of the test. Second, we investigated the impact of GC content. We showed that there is no significant difference of false positives between high GC (up to similar to 80%) and low GC (similar to 30%) genes. Moreover, neither shifts of GC content on a specific branch nor major shifts in GC along the gene sequence generate many false positives. Our results confirm that the branch-site is a very conservative test.