MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799964288 · doi:10.1161/circgen.116.001663

Common Coding Variants in <i>SCN10A</i> Are Associated With the Nav1.8 Late Current and Cardiac Conduction

2018· article· en· W2799964288 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo Macri, Jennifer A. Brody, Dan E. Arking, William J. Hucker, Xiaoyan Yin, Honghuang Lin, Robert W. Mills, Moritz F. Sinner, Steven A. Lubitz, Ching‐Ti Liu, Alanna C. Morrison, Álvaro Alonso, Ning Li, Vadim V. Fedorov, Paul M.L. Janssen, Joshua C. Bis, Susan R. Heckbert, Elena Dolmatova, Thomas Lumley, Colleen M. Sitlani, L. Adrienne Cupples, Sara L. Pulit, Christopher Newton‐Cheh, John Barnard, Jonathan D. Smith, David R. Van Wagoner, Mina K. Chung, Gus J. Vlahakes, Christopher J. O’Donnell, Jerome I. Rotter, Kenneth B. Margulies, Michael P. Morley, Thomas P. Cappola, Emelia J. Benjamin, Donna M. Muzny, Richard A. Gibbs, Rebecca D. Jackson, Jared W. Magnani, Caroline N. Herndon, Stephen S. Rich, Bruce M. Psaty, David J. Milan, Eric Boerwinkle, Peter J. Mohler, Nona Sotoodehnia, Patrick T. Ellinor

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Genomic and Precision Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on AgingGeorgia Clinical and Translational Science AllianceNational Institutes of HealthCleveland ClinicFondation LeducqNational Center for Research ResourcesAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMissense mutationLinkage disequilibriumGeneticsLocus (genetics)HaplotypeBiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismQRS complexGenotypeGeneInternal medicineMedicineMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Genetic variants at the SCN5A / SCN10A locus are strongly associated with electrocardiographic PR and QRS intervals. While SCN5A is the canonical cardiac sodium channel gene, the role of SCN10A in cardiac conduction is less well characterized. Methods: We sequenced the SCN10A locus in 3699 European-ancestry individuals to identify variants associated with cardiac conduction, and replicated our findings in 21,000 individuals of European ancestry. We examined association with expression in human atrial tissue. We explored the biophysical effect of variation on channel function using cellular electrophysiology. Results: We identified 2 intronic single nucleotide polymorphisms in high linkage disequilibrium ( r 2 =0.86) with each other to be the strongest signals for PR (rs10428132, β=−4.74, P =1.52×10 −14 ) and QRS intervals (rs6599251, QRS β=−0.73; P =1.2×10 −4 ), respectively. Although these variants were not associated with SCN5A or SCN10A expression in human atrial tissue (n=490), they were in high linkage disequilibrium ( r 2 ≥0.72) with a common SCN10A missense variant, rs6795970 (V1073A). In total, we identified 7 missense variants, 4 of which (I962V, P1045T, V1073A, and L1092P) were associated with cardiac conduction. These 4 missense variants cluster in the cytoplasmic linker of the second and third domains of the SCN10A protein and together form 6 common haplotypes. Using cellular electrophysiology, we found that haplotypes associated with shorter PR intervals had a significantly larger percentage of late current compared with wild-type (I962V+V1073A+L1092P, 20.2±3.3%, P =0.03, and I962V+V1073A, 22.4±0.8%, P =0.0004 versus wild-type 11.7±1.6%), and the haplotype associated with the longest PR interval had a significantly smaller late current percentage (P1045T, 6.4±1.2%, P =0.03). Conclusions: Our findings suggest an association between genetic variation in SCN10A , the late sodium current, and alterations in cardiac conduction.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations31
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Genomic and Precision MedicineSame topicCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmiasFrench-language works237,207