Somatic<i>GPR101</i>Duplication Causing X-Linked Acrogigantism (XLAG)—Diagnosis and Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Recent reports have proposed that sporadic or familial germline Xq26.3 microduplications involving the GPR101 gene are associated with early-onset X-linked acrogigantism (XLAG) with a female preponderance. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 4-year-old boy presented with rapid growth over the previous 2 years. He complained of sporadic headaches and had coarse facial features. His height Z-score was +4.89, and weight Z-score was +5.57. Laboratory testing revealed elevated serum prolactin (185 μg/L; normal, <18 μg/L), IGF-1 (745 μg/L; normal, 64-369 μg/L), and fasting GH > 35.0 μg/L. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a homogenous bulky pituitary gland (18 × 15 × 13 mm) without obvious adenoma. A pituitary biopsy showed hyperplastic pituitary tissue with enlarged cords of GH and prolactin cells. Germline PRKAR1A, MEN1, AIP, DICER1, CDKN1B, and somatic GNAS mutations were negative. Medical management was challenging until institution of continuous sc infusion of short-acting octreotide combined with sc pegvisomant and oral cabergoline. The patient remains well controlled with minimal side effects 7 years after presentation. His phenotype suggested XLAG, but his peripheral leukocyte-, saliva-, and buccal cell-derived DNA tested negative for microduplication in Xq26.3 or GPR101. However, DNA isolated from the pituitary tissue and forearm skin showed duplicated dosage of GPR101, suggesting that he is mosaic for this genetic abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: Our patient is the first to be described with somatic microduplication leading to typical XLAG phenotype. This patient demonstrates that a negative test for Xq26.3 microduplication or GPR101 duplication on peripheral blood DNA does not exclude the diagnosis of XLAG because it can result from a mosaic mutation affecting the pituitary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".