MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404317877 · doi:10.1101/gr.279331.124

Multiple paralogs and recombination mechanisms contribute to the high incidence of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome

2024· article· en· W4404317877 on OpenAlexaff
Lisanne Vervoort, Nicolas Dierckxsens, Marta Sousa Santos, Senne Meynants, Erika Souche, Ruben Cools, Tracy Heung, Koenraad Devriendt, Hilde Peeters, Donna M. McDonald‐McGinn, Ann Swillen, Jeroen Breckpot, Beverly S. Emanuel, Hilde Van Esch, Anne S. Bassett, Joris Vermeesch

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersKU LeuvenNational Institute of General Medical SciencesFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsNon-allelic homologous recombinationBiologyGeneticsSegmental duplicationChromosomal inversionGene rearrangementHomologous recombinationPalindromeRecombinationHaplotypeGene duplicationGenomeChromosomeGeneGenetic recombinationAlleleKaryotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11.2DS) is the most common microdeletion disorder. Why the incidence of 22q11.2DS is much greater than that of other genomic disorders remains unknown. Short-read sequencing cannot resolve the complex segmental duplications (SDs) to provide direct confirmation of the hypothesis that the rearrangements are caused by nonallelic homologous recombination between the low copy repeats on Chromosome 22 (LCR22s). To enable haplotype-specific assembly and rearrangement mapping in LCR22 clusters, we combined fiber-FISH optical mapping with whole-genome (ultra-)long-read sequencing or rearrangement-specific long-range PCR on 25 families comprising several different LCR22-mediated rearrangements. We demonstrate that not only different paralogous SDs but also palindromic AT-rich repeats (PATRR) within LCR22s are driving 22q11.2 rearrangements. In addition, we show the existence of two different inversion polymorphisms preceding rearrangement, and somatic mosaicism. The existence of different recombination sites and mechanisms in paralogs and PATRRs, which are copy number expanding in the human population, is a likely contributor for the high 22q11.2DS incidence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.307 · 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207