MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Investigation of the Role of Copy Number Variation In the Pathogenesis of Type 1 Von Willebrand Disease

2010· article· en· W2589986701 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel J. Hampshire, Lisa D.S. Bloomer, Ahlam Al-buhairan, Rachael Coyle, Raymon Vijzelaar, David Lillicrap, Paula D. James, Jeroen Eikenboom, Reinhard Schneppenheim, Francesco Rodeghiero, Robert R. Montgomery, I. R. Peake, Anne Goodeve

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplex ligation-dependent probe amplificationVon Willebrand diseaseCopy-number variationVon Willebrand factorPathogenesisGeneticsGenotypeBiologyImmunologyMedicineGeneExonGenomePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 2218 Introduction: Type 1 von Willebrand disease (VWD) results from a partial quantitative deficiency of von Willebrand factor (VWF). Three multicentre studies were recently conducted to elucidate the molecular and clinical features of type 1 VWD; undertaken in the European Union (EU), Canada and the UK. All three successfully identified genetic alterations likely to cause type 1 VWD, but failed to identify a genetic cause in approximately 30–40% of patients. To date, relatively little is known regarding the extent to which large-scale deletions or duplications of VWF contribute to the pathogenesis of type 1 VWD due to the difficulty in identifying such events in heterozygous individuals. The aim of this initial investigation, on behalf of the TS Zimmerman Program for the Molecular and Clinical Biology of VWD (ZPMCB-VWD) and the EU study on VWD (EU-VWD), was to ascertain whether copy number variation (CNV) within VWF contributes to type 1 VWD phenotype in a cohort of index cases (IC) recruited by the EU study. Methods: Twenty-five mutation-negative IC and a further seven IC, in which the identified mutation did not explain the VWD phenotype, were investigated. Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), a well established technique based on sequence-specific probe hybridization to genomic DNA, was used to screen for CNV within VWF, utilizing a recently released VWF MLPA kit (P011-A1/P012-A1; MRC-Holland). In addition, five healthy control individuals (HC) were also screened. Fragment size analysis on an ABI 3730 DNA sequencer was followed by calculation of copy number ratios for each exon-specific amplicon in comparison with HC. Results: Analysis highlighted heterozygous CNV in 7/32 IC; five deletions and two apparent duplications. Regarding the deletions; three were the recently described in-frame deletion of exons 4 and 5 (p.Asp75_Gly178del; Sutherland et al., 2009), the other two patients both had a novel deletion of exons 32–34. Interestingly, the exon 32–34 deletion was also predicted to be in-frame (p.Arg1819_Cys1948delinsSer) and in both IC was associated with abnormal multimers (AbM) and low VWF:Ag (32 and 12 IU/dL respectively) and VWF:RCo (23 and 11 IU/dL respectively) levels. Deletions in all five cases segregated with disease phenotype. The two apparent duplications of exon 2 were both shown to be false positive results following further investigation with a new version of the MLPA kit (P011-B1/P012-B1). Conclusions: CNV of VWF has been shown to contribute to the pathogenesis of type 1 VWD. MLPA analysis of VWF has identified a previously described and a novel heterozygous deletion, both of which result in in-frame deletion of the VWF protein. The analysis also demonstrates that care must be taken when analyzing MLPA data to avoid false positive results. This adds to the mutations detected in the EU cohort, bringing the number to 113/150 IC (75%). Furthermore, MLPA analysis has increased the overall mutation detection rate in EU IC with AbM to 100%. These findings suggest that CNV is a significant contributor to mutation spectrum in type 1 VWD. Application of MLPA to the wider ZPMCB-VWD and EU-VWD patient cohorts will enable ascertainment of the contribution of large deletion/duplication events to all types of VWD pathogenesis. Disclosures: Vijzelaar: MRC-Holland b.v.: Employment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments→French-language works237,207→