Copy Number Variation Distribution in Six Monozygotic Twin Pairs Discordant for Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have evaluated copy number variants (CNVs) in six monozygotic twin pairs discordant for schizophrenia. The data from Affymetrix® Human SNP 6.0 arrays™ were analyzed using Affymetrix® Genotyping Console™, Partek® Genomics Suite™, PennCNV, and Golden Helix SVS™. This yielded both program-specific and overlapping results. Only CNVs called by Affymetrix Genotyping Console, Partek Genomics Suite, and PennCNV were used in further analysis. This analysis included an assessment of calls in each of the six twin pairs towards identification of unique CNVs in affected and unaffected co-twins. Real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) experiments confirmed one CNV loss at 7q11.21 that was found in the affected patient but not in the unaffected twin. The results identified CNVs and genes that were previously implicated in mental abnormalities in four of the six twin pairs. It included PYY (twin pairs 1 and 5), EPHA3 (twin pair 3), KIAA1211L (twin pair 4), and GPR139 (twin pair 5). They represent likely candidate genes and CNVs for the discordance of four of the six monozygotic twin pairs for this heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorder. An explanation for these differences is ontogenetic de novo events that differentiate in the monozygotic twins during development.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".