Name: Frontier Score for "Tandem repeat variation shapes immune cell type-specific gene expression"
Rating: 71
Author: Frontier

What it is

Tandem repeats are short DNA sequences repeated back to back, highly variable between people and spread across the genome. They are important regulators of gene expression but remain underexplored, because genotyping them accurately is hard. The authors generated whole-genome and single-cell RNA sequencing from more than 5.4 million blood-derived cells across 1,925 individuals in two cohorts, and combined the results to characterise how variation at more than 1.7 million tandem repeat sites affects gene expression in specific immune cell types. They identify more than 69,000 single-cell expression quantitative trait loci, associations between a repeat's length and a gene's expression, 30.7% of them specific to one of 28 immune cell types. Matched chromatin-accessibility profiles from more than 3.4 million nuclei in 922 individuals find accessibility effects for nearly a third of the expression-associated repeats. Fine-mapping implicates 1,490 repeats as candidate causal drivers of expression in 6.1% of the genes tested, and colocalization highlights more than 200 genes where repeats likely mediate genetic associations with immune and blood traits.

Why it matters

Repeated DNA stretches, usually skipped by genetic studies that read single letters, turn out to regulate immune genes cell type by cell type. Because the effects are tied to specific cell types, and the same repeats also show up as chromatin-accessibility associations, the work suggests the repeats act through cis-regulatory architecture rather than only tracking it. In the preprint, examples include a poly(T) repeat in the promoter of KIF16B whose effect in cytotoxic immune cells colocalizes with mean platelet volume, and a repeat in the coding sequence of ALMS1, specific to CD8+ naive T cells, colocalizing with haematocrit.

How to read this

These are statistical associations in blood, not demonstrated mechanisms. 'Candidate causal' comes from fine-mapping: in the preprint, a method (SuSiE) that conservatively assumes at most one causal variant per locus and ranks the repeat above nearby variants, and colocalization asks only whether one variant likely influences both expression and a trait. Repeat genotyping from short reads is imperfect: the preprint reports a strict genotype concordance of 80.9% against long reads, notes that such errors should cost sensitivity rather than create false associations, and says short reads still struggle with repeats in low-complexity regions, with long-read sequencing holding promise. Both preprint cohorts are of European ancestry (950 and 975 individuals, one with no signs of eye disease and one with diagnosed or suspected cardiac disorders), and the authors write that laboratory validation remains critical.

Underlined numbers link to their source. Every metric and quoted figure is listed under Sources and data below.

Filed underGenetic Associations and Epidemiology, Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics, Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities

Scored 2026-11-12How scoring works

The Frontier Score, in full

How this entry's score is built, term by term. Open any pillar to see each sub-metric's raw value, how it maps to 0 to 100, and a link to its source (OpenAlex for most sub-metrics that combine several sources, NIH iCite where its ratio is part of field-normalized impact).

The three pillars as one shape: a result strong on every axis fills the triangle.

How the Frontier Score is calculated for this breakthrough
Term	Score	Weight	Points
EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.	94	× 0.25	23.4
ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.	54	× 0.25	13.5
NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.	72	× 0.50	35.9
Weighted pillars			72.8
Frontier recency0 months since publication		× 0.98
IntegrityNot retracted		× 1
Frontier Score			71

Confidence: Early signalEarly signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up.

Every sub-metric, traced to its source

EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.94

Evidence sub-metrics
Sub-metric	Raw value	0 to 100	Weight	Points	Source
Peer review & venueWhether the work has cleared peer review, and how selective its venue is. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient: before citations accrue, a fresh result in one of the five general flagships (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) is a stronger evidence signal than one in a selective specialist or society journal, which in turn outranks one in a legitimate but very high-volume mega-journal, and any of them outranks a preprint that has not been reviewed at all.Maps to 0 to 100: Peer-reviewed article graded by venue tier: flagship journal (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) 100; selective journal (every other journal the index admits: the specialist journals of those families, JAMA, PNAS, Physical Review Letters and X) 90; high-volume mega-journal (Nature Communications, Science Advances) 78; venue not recorded 88. Other records: review 90, book 70, dataset 60, preprint 45, an article that has not been peer reviewed 45, other 55.	Peer-reviewed, flagship journal	100	0.30	30.0	OpenAlex type / primary_location / source
CorroborationIndependent corroboration that the result is on the record and reaching beyond a single source, read as the BREADTH of independent records rather than the size of the citation pile. Counts how many of the five independent citation indices (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC) report a citation count for the work at all, zero included, plus orthogonal, non-citation lines of corroboration: citation in Wikipedia, registered clinical trials or clinical citations, released datasets or software or a repository copy, public funding on record, and technical-community discussion. Citation MAGNITUDE is deliberately judged under Impact, not here, so Evidence and Impact measure genuinely different things instead of both rewarding the same citation pile twice.Maps to 0 to 100: Starts at 28 and rises by 9 for each of the five independent citation indices that returns a citation count for the work (zero counts; OpenCitations returns zero even for a DOI it does not hold) and by 6 for each orthogonal non-citation line (Wikipedia, clinical trials or clinical citations, open datasets, software or a repository copy, public funding, community discussion), up to the top of the 0-100 scale.	5 of 5 citation indices report a count, 1 independent non-citation line	79	0.30	23.7	OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC, DataCite, NIH RePORTER, Wikipedia, Hacker News count of indices that report a count for the work + orthogonal reach
VerifiabilityHow openly the result can be read, reused, and reproduced. Rewards open access, a Creative Commons BY or CC0 license, a green repository copy anyone can archive, openly minable full text, and released datasets or software a reader can actually run. Cross-checked across OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, and DataCite.Maps to 0 to 100: Closed access 45; open access 88; any Creative Commons BY license (including the NC, ND and SA variants) or CC0 100. A repository copy raises the floor to 85, openly minable full text to 90, and released data or software to 92.	Open access (green), CC-BY, repository copy	100	0.20	20.0	OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, DataCite is_oa / license / has_repository_copy / open datasets
IntegrityRetraction and post-publication correction status. A retracted result is not evidence of anything and collapses the whole Frontier Score; a correction or expression of concern is a softer flag. A correction the publisher labels as its own error (a Publisher Correction) is not a flag on the work. Read across OpenAlex and Crossref (both update-to and updated-by notices).Maps to 0 to 100: Clean 100 (also when the only notice is a Publisher Correction); a correction or expression of concern 75; retracted 0. Flagged if OpenAlex OR Crossref records the notice.	No retraction or concern on record	100	0.20	20.0	OpenAlex, Crossref is_retracted / update-to / updated-by

ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.54

Impact sub-metrics
Sub-metric	Raw value	0 to 100	Weight	Points	Source
Field-normalized impactImpact relative to the world average for the same field, year, and type, so a small field and a large field are judged fairly. Triangulates three independent field-normalized measures: OpenAlex's Field-Weighted Citation Impact, its citation percentile within the exact field-and-year cohort, and the NIH iCite Relative Citation Ratio. 1.0x is average; the percentile is the share of same-field, same-year work it out-cites.Maps to 0 to 100: Each ratio (1.0 = field average) maps 1.0 to 50, 3.0 to 75, 9.0 to 90; the field+year percentile maps directly (top 1% -> ~99). The available measures are averaged. When none is available yet (very recent work), this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.	23.0x FWCI, top 0.4% of field-year vs field	98	0.45	44.0	OpenAlex, NIH iCite fwci / citation_normalized_percentile / relative_citation_ratio
Influential citationsCitations that genuinely build on the work rather than mention it in passing (Semantic Scholar's influential-citation measure). A sharper signal of real impact than a raw count.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 15 influential citations maps to 50, and none maps to 0. When Semantic Scholar has no measure for the work, this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.	0 influential	0	0.20	0.0	Semantic Scholar influentialCitationCount
Citation velocityCitations received in the trailing twelve months (estimated from yearly citation counts: this year's so far plus the share of last year's that falls inside the window), judged as a rate rather than a lifetime total. Momentum is what a frontier index cares about: a result being taken up fast right now is landing, whether its lifetime pile is large or still small. Where an expected field citation rate is known, the momentum is also read relative to it, so a fast-moving result in a quiet field is not overlooked.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 30 citations in the last twelve months maps to 50. When NIH iCite provides the field's expected rate, this is blended evenly with the ratio of observed to expected momentum.	12 in last 12 months	29	0.35	10.0	OpenAlex, NIH iCite counts_by_year / field_citation_rate

NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.72

Novelty sub-metrics
Sub-metric	Raw value	0 to 100	Weight	Points	Source
Conceptual noveltyHow genuinely new the contribution is, measured at publication from the work's OWN content, not its date: how atypical its combination of research areas is versus all prior work, and whether it builds on a broad, deep base rather than only the newest papers in a fast-moving area. This is what separates a real advance from a recent-but-commodity result, and it needs no forward citations, so it is stable for brand-new work. An honestly noisy proxy (even state-of-the-art novelty measures agree only moderately with expert judgment), so it carries bounded weight and never drives the ranking alone.Maps to 0 to 100: Two publication-time signals, each 0-100. The primary one is atypical combination: how unusual the work's median pairing of research topics is versus the prior literature, by pointwise mutual information (a pairing made far more often than chance scores low). The second, foundational reach (the median age of the work's references and the share older than five years), can only lift it: when reach is higher, the score rises by 35% of the gap, and it is never lowered. When only one signal is measurable it is used alone; when neither is (a work too thin in topics or references), this sub-metric is left out and Novelty is computed from the other three. A review is damped to 60%.	Median topic pairing Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics x Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities (10,858 prior works made this pairing); builds on refs a median 7.0y deep	54	0.45	24.5	OpenAlex topics + referenced_works (publication-time)
RecencyHow recently the work appeared. The frontier is now, so newer scores higher.Maps to 0 to 100: Exponential decay with a 12-month half-life from the publication date.	This month	97	0.30	29.2	OpenAlex publication_date
Attention accelerationWhether attention is rising: citations in the latest full year versus the year before. Accelerating interest signals an active, opening frontier.Maps to 0 to 100: Latest/prior-year ratio: 1x maps to 50, 2x to 75, 4x to 100. The prior year counts as at least 3 citations, so a jump from one citation to a few is not read as explosive growth. With no citations in the latest full year it reads as unknown, and unknown is neutral (50).	1.3x rising	60	0.10	6.0	OpenAlex counts_by_year
Edge of reviewPreprints sit ahead of the peer-review process and brand-new papers have only just cleared it. Both earn novelty here (while a preprint is discounted under Evidence), because that is where the frontier forms first.Maps to 0 to 100: Preprint 95; any other record 80 when under 6 months old, 65 under 18 months, 45 after that.	Peer-reviewed record	80	0.15	12.0	OpenAlex type / publication_date

ProvenanceAll sources

Sources and data

The source figures behind this entry, grouped by the source that holds them: up to five citation indices cross-checked, field-normalized impact, then real-world reach (Wikipedia, community discussion, clinical trials, released data and public funding) where it exists. Each value links to its record.

OpenAlex

Primary record

Total citations: 15
Field-weighted citation impact: 23.0x field average
Citation percentile: Top 0.4% of its field-year
Citations, recent 12 months: 12
Publication date: 2026-10-28
Access: Open access (green)

Crossref

Citations: 3
Works it builds on: 96

Semantic Scholar

Citations, all versions: 8
Influential citations: 0

OpenCitations

Citations: 0

Europe PMC

Citations: 0

Unpaywall

Reuse license: CC-BY

OpenAlex record Read it in Nature

Figures quoted in the write-up

Figure	Value	Source
Blood-derived cells sequenced (Abstract: whole-genome and single-cell RNA sequencing)	more than 5.4 million	Nature
People in the two cohorts (Abstract)	1,925 individuals	Nature
Genes where repeats likely mediate a trait association (Abstract: immune and haematological traits)	more than 200 genes	Nature
Agreement of repeat genotypes with long-read data (Preprint: a strict genotype concordance rate; the authors expect such errors to reduce sensitivity rather than create false positives)	80.9%	bioRxiv: the authors' preprint
Size and make-up of the two cohorts in the preprint (Preprint: the Tasmanian Ophthalmic Biobank cohort (no signs of ocular disease) and the BioHEART cohort (diagnosed or suspected cardiac disorders))	950 and 975 European ancestry individuals	bioRxiv: the authors' preprint
Tandem repeat sites tested (Abstract)	more than 1.7 million TR loci	Nature
Single-cell expression associations found (Abstract: single-cell expression quantitative trait loci)	more than 69,000	Nature
Share specific to one cell type (Abstract)	30.7%	Nature
Immune cell types (Abstract)	28 immune cell types	Nature
Nuclei with matched chromatin-accessibility profiles (Abstract: single-cell ATAC sequencing)	more than 3.4 million	Nature
People in the chromatin-accessibility data (Abstract)	922 individuals	Nature
Repeats implicated as candidate causal drivers (Abstract: by fine-mapping)	1,490 TRs	Nature
Share of tested genes with such a repeat (Abstract)	6.1%	Nature

For the authors

Show this score where your work lives

A badge for your lab page, your CV or the paper's code repository. It links readers to this entry, and it always carries the entry's current score.

Live preview

<a href="https://frontierresearch.co/breakthroughs/tandem-repeat-variation-shapes-immune-cell-type-specific-w4404047668?utm_source=badge&amp;utm_medium=badge&amp;utm_campaign=author-kit"><img src="https://frontierresearch.co/api/badge/W4404047668.svg" alt="Frontier Score for this paper" height="20"></a>

For a lab or personal website, a CV page, or anywhere that takes HTML.

The number is live. The badge is drawn from the same signals as this page, so it never shows a score the entry does not. Every entry is re-checked weekly against the same public sources, and a result's standing eases as it ages, so the active edge of the field stays on top. How scoring works

Your other papers. The free paper check shows any paper's field-weighted citation impact, its citations in five open indexes and any retraction on record, whether or not it is in the index, and the researcher check does it for your whole record from your ORCID iD.

Something wrong or out of date? Write to hello@frontierresearch.co and the entry will be corrected.

Biomedicine & HealthThe whole field

Biomedicine & Health · Notable

Tracing the spread of Germanic languages using ancient genomics

Ancient DNA suggests Germanic may have reached Scandinavia some 800 years later than assumed

E 93I 59N 82Oct 28, 2026

Biomedicine & Health · Notable

Clostridium perfringens Delta toxin targets CD9 to drive NEC and brain injury

E 92I 37N 91Oct 28, 2026

Biomedicine & Health · Notable

Population-scale single-nucleus multi-omic profiling of skeletal muscle reveals extensive context-specific genetic regulation

Single-nucleus maps of 287 muscle biopsies match almost 3,500 trait signals to regulatory variants

E 93I 57N 77Oct 28, 2026

Back to the Frontier Index, or browse every breakthrough by date.

What it is

Why it matters

The Frontier Score, in full

Sources and data

OpenAlex

Crossref

Semantic Scholar

OpenCitations

Europe PMC

Unpaywall

Show this score where your work lives

Related on the frontier

Tracing the spread of Germanic languages using ancient genomics

Clostridium perfringens Delta toxin targets CD9 to drive NEC and brain injury

Population-scale single-nucleus multi-omic profiling of skeletal muscle reveals extensive context-specific genetic regulation

The week's Biomedicine & Health, scored.