Delineation of 15q13.3 microdeletions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masurel‐Paulet A, Andrieux J, Callier P, Cuisset JM, Le Caignec C, Holder M, Thauvin‐Robinet C, Doray B, Flori E, Alex‐Cordier MP, Beri M, Boute O, Delobel B, Dieux A, Vallee L, Jaillard S, Odent S, Isidor B, Beneteau C, Vigneron J, Bilan F, Gilbert‐Dussardier B, Dubourg C, Labalme A, Gautier A, Pernes P, Bidon C, Pinoit JM, Huet F, Mugneret F, Aral B, Jonveaux P, Sanlaville D, Faivre L. Delineation of 15q13.3 microdeletions. The increasing use of array‐comparative genomic hybridization (array‐CGH) to identify copy number variations (CNVs) in patients with developmental delay (DD), mental retardation and/or dysmorphic features has allowed the recent recognition of numerous genomic imbalances, including the 15q13.3 microdeletion. Patients with this microdeletion generally present with relatively consistent breakpoints at BP4 and BP5, which include the CHRNA7 gene. About 100 index cases have been reported since the first publication in 2008. This large number of patients ascertained through highly variable samples has been necessary to describe the full phenotypic spectrum of this microdeletion, ranging from mental retardation with dysmorphic features, epilepsy, neuropsychiatric disturbances with or without cognitive impairment to complete absence of anomalies. Here, we describe a collaborative study reporting a new cohort of 12 index patients and 13 relatives carrying a heterozygous BP4–BP5 microdeletion out of a series of 4625 patients screened by array‐CGH for DD. We confirm the clinical expressivity of the disease as well as the incomplete penetrance in seven families. We showed through a review of the literature that males are more likely to be symptomatic. Sequence analysis of CHRNA7 yielded no data to support the unmasking of recessive variants as a cause of phenotypic variability. We also report the first patient carrying a 15q13.3 homozygous microdeletion inherited from both parents. He had severe epileptic encephalopathy with retinopathy, autistic features and choreoathetosis. Besides the classical ∼1.5 Mb BP4–BP5 microdeletion, we also describe three index patients and two relatives with a smaller 500 kb microdeletion, including the CHRNA7 gene.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".