Subtelomeric deletion of chromosome 10p15.3: Clinical findings and molecular cytogenetic characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe 19 unrelated individuals with submicroscopic deletions involving 10p15.3 characterized by chromosomal microarray (CMA). Interestingly, to our knowledge, only two individuals with isolated, submicroscopic 10p15.3 deletion have been reported to date; however, only limited clinical information is available for these probands and the deleted region has not been molecularly mapped. Comprehensive clinical history was obtained for 12 of the 19 individuals described in this study. Common features among these 12 individuals include: cognitive/behavioral/developmental differences (11/11), speech delay/language disorder (10/10), motor delay (10/10), craniofacial dysmorphism (9/12), hypotonia (7/11), brain anomalies (4/6) and seizures (3/7). Parental studies were performed for nine of the 19 individuals; the 10p15.3 deletion was de novo in seven of the probands, not maternally inherited in one proband and inherited from an apparently affected mother in one proband. Molecular mapping of the 19 individuals reported in this study has identified two genes, ZMYND11 (OMIM 608668) and DIP2C (OMIM 611380; UCSC Genome Browser), mapping within 10p15.3 which are most commonly deleted. Although no single gene has been identified which is deleted in all 19 individuals studied, the deleted region in all but one individual includes ZMYND11 and the deleted region in all but one other individual includes DIP2C. There is not a clearly identifiable phenotypic difference between these two individuals and the size of the deleted region does not generally predict clinical features. Little is currently known about these genes complicating a direct genotype/phenotype correlation at this time. These data however, suggest that ZMYND11 and/or DIP2C haploinsufficiency contributes to the clinical features associated with 10p15 deletions in probands described in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".