Homozygosity mapping of autosomal recessive intellectual disability loci in 11 consanguineous Pakistani families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autosomal recessive intellectual disability (ID) is genetically heterogeneous and most of the genes causing it remain undiscovered. OBJECTIVE: We have ascertained 11 consanguineous families multiplex for IDs in order to identify new loci for autosomal recessive genes for non-syndromic ID, or to aid pinpointing mutations in known causative gene/loci. Methodology Microarray genotyping (Affymatrix 250K) was performed to identify homozygosity-by-descent (HBD) in all affected families. RESULTS: Analysis of genotypes revealed 45 potential HBD regions across the families, although these may be rationalised down to 39. Two families share an overlapping HBD region on 7q11.21. In one family, X-linkage also looks plausible, and a new ID gene near the centromere may be a likely cause. In one family, no HBD region was found, and thus we exclude autosomal recessive mutation as the likely cause in this family. Copy-number variation (CNV) was also performed and revealed no CNVs, homozygous or heterozygous, segregating with the phenotype. CONCLUSION: The homozygous loci identified in this study might harbour candidate genes for ID in these studied families. Therefore, we are proceeding with next-generation sequencing analysis of the families, using whole-exome approaches, and anticipate that this will identify the causative gene/mutation within the identified HBD regions for many of the families studied here.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".