MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406284854 · doi:10.1093/braincomms/fcae418

Genomic characterization of Huntington’s disease genetic modifiers informs drug target tractability

2024· article· en· W4406284854 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Lucy Namuli, Alana N. Slike, Mason A Hollebeke, Galen E.B. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsUniversity of ManitobaResearch ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre Foundation
KeywordsHuntington's diseaseDrugDiseaseGeneticsComputational biologyBiologyCharacterization (materials science)MedicinePharmacologyNanotechnologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Huntington’s disease is caused by a CAG repeat in the HTT gene. Repeat length correlates inversely with the age of onset but only explains part of the observed clinical variability. Genome-wide association studies highlight DNA repair genes in modifying disease onset, but further research is required to identify causal genes and evaluate their tractability as drug targets. To address these gaps and learn important preclinical information, we analysed genome-wide association study data from a large Huntington’s disease age-of-onset study (n = 9064), prioritizing robust candidate Huntington’s disease modifier genes using bioinformatic approaches and analysing related information for these genes from large-scale human genetic repositories. We supplemented this information with other Huntington’s disease–related screens, including exome studies of Huntington’s disease onset and high-throughput assessments of mHTT toxicity. To confirm whether Huntington’s disease modifiers are shared across repeat expansion disorders, we also analysed age-of-onset genome-wide association study data from X-linked dystonia-parkinsonism caused by a (CCCTCT)n expansion. We also studied modifier-related associations with rare diseases to inform potential off-target therapeutic effects and conducted comprehensive phenome-wide studies to identify other traits linked to these genes. Finally, we evaluated the aggregated human genetic evidence and theoretical druggability of the prioritized Huntington’s disease modifier genes, including characteristics recently associated with clinical trial stoppage due to safety concerns (i.e. human genetic constraint, number of interacting partners and RNA tissue expression specificity). In total, we annotated and assessed nine robust candidate Huntington’s disease modifier genes. Notably, we detected a high correlation (R2 = 0.78) in top age-of-onset genome-wide association study hits across repeat expansion disorders, emphasizing cross-disorder relevance. Clinical genetic repositories analysis showed DNA repair genes, such as MLH1, PMS2 and MSH3, are associated with cancer phenotypes, suggesting potential limitations as drug targets. LIG1 and RRM2B were both associated with neurofibrillary tangles, which may provide a link to a potential role in mHTT aggregates, while MSH3 was associated with several cortical morphology-related traits relevant to Huntington’s disease. Finally, human genetic evidence and theoretical druggability analyses prioritized and ranked modifier genes, with PMS1 exhibiting the most favourable profile. Notably, HTT itself ranked poorly as a theoretical drug target, emphasizing the importance of exploring modifier-based alternative targets. In conclusion, our study highlights the importance of human genomic information to prioritize Huntington’s disease modifier genes as drug targets, providing a basis for future therapeutic development in Huntington’s disease and other repeat expansion disorders.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain CommunicationsSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207