MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196008066 · doi:10.3390/genes12081275

A Case Series of Familial ARID1B Variants Illustrating Variable Expression and Suggestions to Update the ACMG Criteria

2021· article· en· W3196008066 on OpenAlexaff
Pleuntje J. van der Sluijs, Mariëlle Alders, Alexander J.M. Dingemans, Kareesma Parbhoo, Bregje W.M. van Bon, Jennifer C. Dempsey, Dan Doherty, Johan T. den Dunnen, Erica H. Gerkes, Ilana M. Milller, Stéphanie Moortgat, Debra S. Regier, Claudia Ruivenkamp, Betsy Schmalz, Thomas Smol, Kyra E. Stuurman, Catherine Vincent‐Delorme, Bert B.A. de Vries, Bekim Sadiković, Scott E. Hickey, Jill A. Rosenfeld, Isabelle Maystadt, Gijs W.E. Santen

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaploinsufficiencyGeneticsLoss functionMedical geneticsBiologyPhenotypeComputational biologyFunction (biology)GenomicsGeneBioinformaticsGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ARID1B is one of the most frequently mutated genes in intellectual disability (~1%). Most variants are readily classified, since they are de novo and are predicted to lead to loss of function, and therefore classified as pathogenic according to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants. However, familial loss-of-function variants can also occur and can be challenging to interpret. Such variants may be pathogenic with variable expression, causing only a mild phenotype in a parent. Alternatively, since some regions of the ARID1B gene seem to be lacking pathogenic variants, loss-of-function variants in those regions may not lead to ARID1B haploinsufficiency and may therefore be benign. We describe 12 families with potential loss-of-function variants, which were either familial or with unknown inheritance and were in regions where pathogenic variants have not been described or are otherwise challenging to interpret. We performed detailed clinical and DNA methylation studies, which allowed us to confidently classify most variants. In five families we observed transmission of pathogenic variants, confirming their highly variable expression. Our findings provide further evidence for an alternative translational start site and we suggest updates for the ACMG guidelines for the interpretation of sequence variants to incorporate DNA methylation studies and facial analyses.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207