MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021470891 · doi:10.1101/2020.04.24.20077586

Linkage analysis identifies an isolated strabismus locus at 14q12 overlapping with FOXG1 syndrome region

2020· preprint· en· W3021470891 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Ye, Nicole M. Roslin, Andrew D. Paterson, Christopher J. Lyons, Victor Pegado, Phillip A. Richmond, Casper Shyr, Oriol Fornés, Xiaohua Han, Michelle Higginson, Colin J.D. Ross, Deborah Giaschi, Cheryl Y. Gregory‐Evans, Millan S. Patel, Wyeth W. Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome AlbertaGenome British ColumbiaMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome CanadaOntario GenomicsOntario Genomics Institute
KeywordsGeneticsBiologyLocus (genetics)PhenotypeGenetic linkageStrabismusGeneTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Strabismus is a common condition, affecting 1-4% of individuals. Isolated strabismus has been studied in families with Mendelian inheritance patterns. Despite the identification of multiple loci via linkage analyses, no specific genes have been identified from these studies. The current study is based on a seven-generation family with isolated strabismus inherited in an autosomal dominant manner. A total of 13 individuals from a common ancestor have been included for linkage analysis, and a single linkage signal has been identified at chromosome 14q12 with a multipoint LOD score of 4.69. Disruption of this locus is known to cause FOXG1 syndrome (or congenital Rett syndrome; OMIM #613454 and *164874), in which 84% of affected individuals present with strabismus. With the incorporation of next generation sequencing and in-depth bioinformatic analyses, a 4bp non-coding deletion was prioritized as the top candidate for the observed strabismus phenotype. The deletion is predicted to disrupt regulation of FOXG1 , which encodes a transcription factor of the Forkhead family. Suggestive of an auto-regulation effect, the disrupted sequence matches the consensus FOXG1 and Forkhead family transcription factor binding site and has been observed in previous ChIP-seq studies to be bound by Foxg1 in early mouse brain development. The findings of this study indicate that the strabismus phenotype commonly observed within FOXG1 syndrome is separable from the more severe syndromic characteristics. Future study of this specific deletion may shed light on the regulation of FOXG1 expression and may enhance our understanding of the mechanisms contributing to strabismus and FOXG1 syndrome. Author summary Eye misalignment, or strabismus, can affect up to 4% of individuals. When strabismus is detected early, intervention in young children based on eye patching and/or corrective lenses can be beneficial. In some cases, corrective surgeries are used to align the eyes, with many individuals requiring multiple surgeries over a lifetime. A better understanding of the causes of strabismus may lead to earlier detection as well as improved treatment options. Hippocrates observed that strabismus runs in families over 2,400 years ago, an early recognition of what we now recognize as a portion of cases arising from genetic causes. We describe a large family affected by strabismus and identify a single region on chromosome 14 that may be responsible. The region contains FOXG1 , in which mutations are known to cause a severe syndrome, with 84% of affected individuals also having strabismus. We identify a 4bp deletion in the region that appears to auto-regulate when FOXG1 is active. Future study of this genetic alteration may enhance our understanding of the mechanisms of strabismus.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207