MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298527758 · doi:10.1172/jci.insight.85461

Identifying candidate genes for 2p15p16.1 microdeletion syndrome using clinical, genomic, and functional analysis

2016· article· en· W2298527758 on OpenAlexafffund
Hani Bagheri, Chansonette Badduke, Ying Qiao, Rita Colnaghi, I Abramowiçz, Diana Alcantara, Christopher Dunham, Jiadi Wen, Robert S. Wildin, Małgorzata J.M. Nowaczyk, Jennifer N. Eichmeyer, Anna Lehman, Bruno Maranda, Sally Martell, Xianghong Shan, M. E. Suzanne Lewis, Mark O’Driscoll, Cheryl Y. Gregory‐Evans, Evica Rajcan‐Separovic

Bibliographic record

VenueJCI Insight · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversité de SherbrookeChild and Family Research InstituteMcMaster University Medical CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCancer Research UKChild and Family Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlexander and Margaret Stewart Trust
KeywordsMicrocephalyCandidate geneBiologyGeneticsHypotoniaGene knockdownGeneZebrafishPhenotypeCopy-number variationMicrodeletion syndromeBioinformaticsGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2p15p16.1 microdeletion syndrome has a core phenotype consisting of intellectual disability, microcephaly, hypotonia, delayed growth, common craniofacial features, and digital anomalies. So far, more than 20 cases of 2p15p16.1 microdeletion syndrome have been reported in the literature; however, the size of the deletions and their breakpoints vary, making it difficult to identify the candidate genes. Recent reports pointed to 4 genes ( XPO1 , USP34 , BCL11A , and REL ) that were included, alone or in combination, in the smallest deletions causing the syndrome. Here, we describe 8 new patients with the 2p15p16.1 deletion and review all published cases to date. We demonstrate functional deficits for the above 4 candidate genes using patients’ lymphoblast cell lines (LCLs) and knockdown of their orthologs in zebrafish. All genes were dosage sensitive on the basis of reduced protein expression in LCLs. In addition, deletion of XPO1 , a nuclear exporter, cosegregated with nuclear accumulation of one of its cargo molecules (rpS5) in patients’ LCLs. Other pathways associated with these genes (e.g., NF-κB and Wnt signaling as well as the DNA damage response) were not impaired in patients’ LCLs. Knockdown of xpo1a , rel , bcl11aa , and bcl11ab resulted in abnormal zebrafish embryonic development including microcephaly, dysmorphic body, hindered growth, and small fins as well as structural brain abnormalities. Our multifaceted analysis strongly implicates XPO1 , REL , and BCL11A as candidate genes for 2p15p16.1 microdeletion syndrome.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCI InsightSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207