Single variant, yet “double trouble”: TSC and KBG syndrome because of a large de novo inversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the advances in high-throughput sequencing, many rare disease patients remain undiagnosed. In particular, the patients with well-defined clinical phenotypes and established clinical diagnosis, yet missing or partial genetic diagnosis, may hold a clue to more complex genetic mechanisms of a disease that could be missed by available clinical tests. Here, we report a patient with a clinical diagnosis of Tuberous sclerosis, combined with unusual secondary features, but negative clinical tests including TSC1 and TSC2 . Short-read whole-genome sequencing combined with advanced bioinformatics analyses were successful in uncovering a de novo pericentric 87-Mb inversion with breakpoints in TSC2 and ANKRD11 , which explains the TSC clinical diagnosis, and confirms a second underlying monogenic disorder, KBG syndrome. Our findings illustrate how complex variants, such as large inversions, may be missed by clinical tests and further highlight the importance of well-defined clinical diagnoses in uncovering complex molecular mechanisms of a disease, such as complex variants and “double trouble” effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".