MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409086646 · doi:10.1093/brain/awaf111

Heterozygous <i>RAB3A</i> variants cause cerebellar ataxia by a partial loss-of-function mechanism

2025· article· en· W4409086646 on OpenAlexafffund
Holger Hengel, Shabab B. Hannan, Selina Reich, Danique Beijer, Bernd K. Gilsbach, Christian Johannes Gloeckner, Daniel Greene, Dagmar Timmann, Christel Depienne, Andrew Mumford, Mary O’Driscoll, Andrea H. Németh, Julie Lundberg, Lance H. Rodan, Ange-Line Bruel, Julian Delanne, Tine Deconinck, Jonathan Baets, Ziv Gan‐Or, Guy A. Rouleau, Oksana Suchowersky, Mehrdad A. Estiar, Stephen G. Reich, Camilo Toro, Stephan Züchner, Jamïlé Hazan, Hjörvar Pétursson, Florian Harmuth, Claudia Bauer, Peter Bauer, Ernest Turro, David G. Lambright, Lüdger Schöls, Matthis Synofzik

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicGenetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFonds de recherche du QuébecDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsAtaxiaMechanism (biology)Cerebellar ataxiaNeuroscienceCerebellumLoss functionGeneticsPsychologyBiologyPhenotypeGenePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RAB3A encodes a small GTP-binding protein that is abundant in brain synaptic vesicles and crucial for the release of neurotransmitters and synaptic plasticity. Here, we identified RAB3A as a candidate gene for autosomal dominant cerebellar ataxia by two independent approaches: linkage in a large dominant ataxia family and, in parallel, an untargeted computational genetic association approach, analysing the 100 000 Genomes Project datasets. To validate the role of RAB3A in ataxia, we next screened large rare disease databases for rare heterozygous RAB3A variants in probands with ataxia features. In total, we identified 18 individuals from 10 unrelated families all sharing a cerebellar ataxia phenotype. Notably, 9 of the 10 families carried a recurrent variant in RAB3A, p.Arg83Trp, including one de novo occurrence. In addition, our screening revealed three families with a neurodevelopmental phenotype and three unique RAB3A variants, which were either de novo or loss-of-function variants. In line with the different RAB3A variant types, protein domains and predicted functional consequences, a comprehensive set of complementary methods was used to characterize the identified variants functionally. As expected, GTPase-activating protein (GAP)-dependent GTP hydrolysis was reduced for those two missense variants located in the GAP-binding domain of RAB3A (Arg83Trp and Tyr91Cys). In a Drosophila Rab3 loss-of-function model, these two missense variants also failed to rescue a synaptic phenotype. Overexpression of Rab3 variants in Drosophila wild-type background did not cause an obvious phenotype, making a dominant negative effect of these variants unlikely. Lastly, exploring interactors of RAB3A variants by using co-immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry showed differential changes in variant-specific interactions with known RAB3A key regulatory and effector proteins. In sum, our results establish RAB3A as a neurological disease gene. It represents an autosomal dominant gene for cerebellar ataxia with different variants associated with disease, including the frequent reoccurring variant p.Arg83Trp. Our study sheds light on the variant-specific interactome of RAB3A. Finally, we suggest an association of RAB3A with a neurodevelopmental phenotype, as reported for variants in several RAB3A interaction partners and as seen in Rab3A-deficent mice, although this possible association warrants further investigation by future studies.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesFrench-language works237,207