MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014915618 · doi:10.1101/2020.04.03.024554

Genome wide analysis of gene dosage in 24,092 individuals shows that 10,000 genes modulate cognitive ability

2020· preprint· en· W3014915618 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillaume Huguet, Catherine Schramm, Élise Douard, Antoine Main, Pauline Monin, Jade England, Khadijé Jizi, Thomas Renné, Myriam Poirier, Sabrina Nowak, Charles-Olivier Martin, Nadine Younis, Inga Sophia Knoth, Martineau Jean Louis, Zohra Saci, Maude Auger, Frédérique Tihy, Géraldine Mathonnet, Catalina Maftei, David J. Porteous, Gail Davies, Paul Redmond, Sarah E. Harris, Emmanuelle Lemyre, Günter Schumann, Thomas Bourgeron, Zdenka Pausová, Tomáš Paus, Sherif Karama, Sarah Lippé, Ian J. Deary, Laura Almasy, Aurélie Labbe, David C. Glahn, Celia M.T. Greenwood, Sébastien Jacquemont

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsDouglas Mental Health University InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalHospital for Sick ChildrenCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineHEC MontréalBaycrest HospitalHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCompute CanadaHospital for Sick ChildrenWellcome TrustInstitut de Valorisation des DonnéesFondation Brain CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAutism SpeaksNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHaploinsufficiencyCopy-number variationGeneGeneticsBiologyCognitionGenomeAutismHuman geneticsPhenotypePsychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Genomic Copy Number Variants (CNVs) are routinely identified and reported back to patients with neuropsychiatric disorders, but their quantitative effects on essential traits such as cognitive ability are poorly documented. We have recently shown that the effect-size of deletions on cognitive ability can be statistically predicted using measures of intolerance to haploinsufficiency. However, the effect-sizes of duplications remain unknown. It is also unknown if the effect of multigenic CNVs are driven by a few genes intolerant to haploinsufficiency or distributed across tolerant genes as well. Here, we identified all CNVs >50 kilobases in 24,092 individuals from unselected and autism cohorts with assessments of general intelligence. Statistical models used measures of intolerance to haploinsufficiency of genes included in CNVs to predict their effect-size on intelligence. Intolerant genes decrease general intelligence by 0.8 and 2.6 points of IQ when duplicated or deleted, respectively. Effect-sizes showed no heterogeneity across cohorts. Validation analyses demonstrated that models could predict CNV effect-sizes with 78% accuracy. Data on the inheritance of 27,766 CNVs showed that deletions and duplications with the same effect-size on intelligence occur de novo at the same frequency. We estimated that around 10,000 intolerant and tolerant genes negatively affect intelligence when deleted, and less than 2% have large effect-sizes. Genes encompassed in CNVs were not enriched in any GOterms but gene regulation and brain expression were GOterms overrepresented in the intolerant subgroup. Such pervasive effects on cognition may be related to emergent properties of the genome not restricted to a limited number of biological pathways.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207