Intragenic <i>PNPLA1</i> duplication in Labrador retrievers with nonepidermolytic ichthyosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ichthyoses represent a heterogeneous group of cornification disorders characterised by epidermal scaling. OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical, histopathological and genetic analysis of a Labrador retriever with nonepidermolytic ichthyosis, and the results of a population screening for a newly detected PNPLA1 genomic duplication. ANIMALS: Two 7-year-old male littermates, 531 population samples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical and histopathological analysis, whole genome sequencing and digital PCR-based genotyping were performed. RESULTS: Generalised scaling and histological laminar orthokeratotic hyperkeratosis confirmed the ichthyosis diagnosis on Dog 1. Dog 2 showed mild clinical signs possibly associated with allergies and not ichthyosis. The genome of Dog 1 was sequenced and compared to 1469 genetically diverse control genomes. The analysis identified a 6099-bp duplication spanning three internal exons of the PNPLA1 gene, which is predicted to result in an altered C-terminal tail of the protein, NP_001277038.2:p.(E558Lfs*17). Dog 2 had a heterozygous genotype and carried one copy of the duplicated PNPLA1 allele. Of the screened 531 additional Labrador retrievers, 491 were homozygous wild-type, 36 were heterozygous carriers and four carried the duplication in a homozygous state. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Previously identified PNPLA1 variants cause autosomal recessive ichthyosis in golden retrievers and humans. Given the well-established function of PNPLA1, the identified genomic duplication represents a likely candidate causal variant for the observed ichthyosis in the examined Labrador retriever. This is the first report of a new form of autosomal recessive ichthyosis in Labrador retrievers, which provides the basis for genetic testing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".