MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167600834 · doi:10.1136/jmg.39.2.132

Functional characterisation of <i>MeCP2</i> mutations found in male patients with X linked mental retardation

2002· article· en· W2167600834 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S Kudo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Genetics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilRetina FranceAlberta Children's Hospital FoundationFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleChildren's Hospital FoundationUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMECP2Rett syndromeBiologyMutantGeneticsMutationHeterochromatinNeurodevelopmental disorderMolecular biologyGeneChromatinPhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

igh myopia often appears as a familial disease.It is usually defined as a refraction error equal to or below -6 diopters (D) in each eye. 1 Highly myopic patients represent 27-33% of the myopic population. 2 The prevalence of the disease in the general population varies according to the country, from 2.1% in the USA, 2 to 3.2% in France, 3 and up to 9.6% in Spain.3 High myopia is also termed "pathological" myopia because of its potential complications.The highly myopic eye is usually characterised by an abnormal lengthening and a posterior staphyloma.It is often accompanied by glaucoma, cataracts, macular degeneration, and retinal detachment, leading to blindness when the damage to the retina is extremely severe.Both genetic and environmental factors, such as close work, are known to play a role in the aetiology of high myopia.The inheritance of the disease is equivocal.Several genealogical studies have shown autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive modes of inheritance.4 5 Rare cases of sex linked transmission have been observed.6 In a previous study, 7 we showed that, assuming a single gene model, autosomal dominant transmission with weak penetrance was largely present in the families that we studied.Young et al have recently reported linkage of familial high myopia to chromosome regions 18p 8 and 12q.9 We previously found no evidence for linkage to the former chromosomal region in the families of our study.Several putative candidate loci were excluded as well in these families, such as the locus for Stickler syndrome types 1 and 2, versican and aggregan genes, Marfan 1 syndrome, and a Marfan-like disorder localised to 3p24.2-p25.In order to find new loci implicated in high myopia, we conducted a genome screen in 23 families following an autosomal dominant mode of inheritance with weak penetrance.Here, we provide further evidence for genetic heterogeneity by excluding the chromosome 12q and 18p regions, previously linked to familial high myopia, 8 9 and report suggestive evidence for the presence of a third autosomal locus on chromosome 7q. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS SubjectsMedical history and ophthalmic assessment were obtained from 140 participants from 21 French families and two Algerian families, after informed consent according to French law.We focused our study on isolated bilateral high myopia.Families with unilateral high myopia, syndromes with high myopia, and myopia of prematurity were excluded.For each patient, subjective refraction and keratometry were performed.Axial lengths were also measured for almost all of the subjects.Objective refraction was measured by automatic refractometry.The refraction defect in spherical equivalent was the criterion chosen to classify subjects into two groups, high myopes and unaffected persons.A subject was considered to be highly myopic if the refraction error in the lesser affected eye was -6 D or below.We considered low myopes (myopia between -6 and -1 D), emmetropes (refraction status between -1 and 1 D), and patients with hyperopia (refraction status greater than 1 D) as unaffected subjects.Details of refractive status are summarised in table 1. DNA analysis/marker typingVenous blood samples were collected in EDTA for DNA extraction according to standard methods.10 The genome screen used 400 highly polymorphic fluorescently labelled microsatellite markers, with an average spacing of 10 cM, from the ABI PRISM Linkage Mapping Set MD-10 (Perkin-Elmer, Warrington, UK).The map positions were generated from the CEPH genotype data used for the Généthon map.For fine mapping, we selected those regions with a two point lod score >1.This is clearly well below the threshold for statistical significance but provided a convenient cut off for identification of regions meriting higher density genotyping.Additional polymorphic markers (heterozygosity >75%) were selected from the Généthon and the CHLC genetic maps and were fluorescently labelled.All labels were either 6FAM, HEX, or NED 5′ end labels.All PCR reactions were carried out using 25 ng of genomic DNA as a template in a mixture of 1 × Perkin-Elmer PCR buffer, 2.5 mmol/l MgCl 2 , 200 nmol/l of each dNTP, 5 pmol of each primer, and 0.1 µl of TaqGold polymerase (Perkin-Elmer, Warrington, UK) in a final volume of 15 µl.The thermocycling conditions were 95°C for 18 minutes, followed by 38 cycles at 94°C for one second, 55°C for 25 seconds, and 72°C for five seconds, followed by a 10 minute final extension step at 72°C.PCR products were pooled with regard to their size range and labelling, mixed with a formamide sample buffer, and electrophoresed through preheated 6% acrylamide/50% (W/V) urea gels on an ABI 373 DNA sequencer XL upgrade (PE Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer's recommendations.All amplimers were sized by the GeneScan Analysis 3.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical GeneticsSame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207