De novo damaging coding mutations are strongly associated with obsessive-compulsive disorder and overlap with autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating developmental neuropsychiatric disorder with a genetic risk component, yet identification of high-confidence risk genes has been challenging. We performed whole-exome sequencing in 222 OCD parent-child trios (184 trios after quality control), finding strong evidence that de novo likely gene disrupting and predicted damaging missense variants contribute to OCD risk. Together, these de novo damaging variants are enriched in OCD probands (RR 1.52, p=0.0005). We identified two high-confidence risk genes, each containing two de novo damaging variants in unrelated probands: CHD8 (Chromodomain Helicase DNA Binding Protein 8) and SCUBE1 (Signal Peptide, CUB Domain And EGF Like Domain Containing 1) . Based on our data, we estimate that 34% of de novo damaging variants seen in OCD contribute to risk, and that de novo damaging variants in approximately 335 genes contribute to risk in 22% of OCD cases. Furthermore, genes harboring de novo damaging variants in OCD are enriched for those reported in neurodevelopmental disorders, particularly autism spectrum disorders. An exploratory network analysis reveals significant functional connectivity and enrichment in canonical pathways related to immune response. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Decades of genetic studies in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have yet to provide reproducible, statistically significant findings. Following an approach that has led to tremendous success in gene discovery for several neuropsychiatric disorders, here we report findings from DNA whole-exome sequencing of patients with OCD and their parents. We find strong evidence for the contribution of spontaneous, or de novo, predicted-damaging genetic variants to OCD risk, identify two high-confidence risk genes, and detect significant overlap with genes previously identified in autism. These results change the status quo of OCD genetics by identifying novel OCD risk genes, clarifying the genetic landscape of OCD with respect to de novo variation, and suggesting underlying biological pathways that will improve our understanding of OCD biology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".