Xq26 duplications lead to undergrowth or overgrowth via competing pathways including GPC3/GPC4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Xq26 locus has importance in human growth with multiple genes and regions playing important roles, which potentially leads to macrosomia or microsomia if disrupted. One region of Xq26.2 comprises the genes GPC3 and GPC4; deletion or duplication of this region has been recently been shown to result in overgrowth, specifically Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome. We describe a male patient with two maternally inherited Xq26 microduplications; the first was 0.8 Mb at Xq26.2 affecting only GPC3 and GPC4, and the second, a distal 0.6 Mb duplication at Xq26.3 affecting seven genes. Rather than having Simpson-Golabi-Behmel syndrome, our patient had microcephaly and undergrowth, with development that was within normal limits at 25 months of age. This finding suggests that the molecular pathway leading to overgrowth secondary to GPC3/GPC4 haploinsufficiency can be overpowered by a disruption to the distal Xq26.3 region. Of the genes in that region, we propose that SLC9A6 is the most likely to play an important role as mutations in this gene lead to Christianson syndrome, in which patients may have microcephaly and weight loss.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".