Indexing Effects of Copy Number Variation on Genes Involved in Developmental Delay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A challenge in clinical genomics is to predict whether copy number variation (CNV) affecting a gene or multiple genes will manifest as disease. Increasing recognition of gene dosage effects in neurodevelopmental disorders prompted us to develop a computational approach based on critical-exon (highly expressed in brain, highly conserved) examination for potential etiologic effects. Using a large CNV dataset, our updated analyses revealed significant (P < 1.64 × 10(-15)) enrichment of critical-exons within rare CNVs in cases compared to controls. Separately, we used a weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) to construct an unbiased protein module from prenatal and adult tissues and found it significantly enriched for critical exons in prenatal (P < 1.15 × 10(-50), OR = 2.11) and adult (P < 6.03 × 10(-18), OR = 1.55) tissues. WGCNA yielded 1,206 proteins for which we prioritized the corresponding genes as likely to have a role in neurodevelopmental disorders. We compared the gene lists obtained from critical-exon and WGCNA analysis and found 438 candidate genes associated with CNVs annotated as pathogenic, or as variants of uncertain significance (VOUS), from among 10,619 developmental delay cases. We identified genes containing CNVs previously considered to be VOUS to be new candidate genes for neurodevelopmental disorders (GIT1, MVB12B and PPP1R9A) demonstrating the utility of this strategy to index the clinical effects of CNVs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".