MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412056897 · doi:10.1101/2025.07.04.662981

Population differences of chromosome 22q11.2 duplication structure predispose differentially to microdeletion and inversion

2025· preprint· en· W4412056897 on OpenAlexafffund
David Porubskỳ, DongAhn Yoo, Philip C. Dishuck, Nidhi Koundinya, Erika Souche, William T. Harvey, Katherine M. Munson, Kendra Hoekzema, Daniel D. Chan, Tiffany Y. Leung, Marta Santos, Senne Meynants, Ann Swillen, Jeroen Breckpot, Vasiliki Tsapalou, Patrick Hasenfeld, Jan O. Korbel, Peter M. Lansdorp, Joris Vermeesch, Evan E. Eichler

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaTerry Fox Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHaplotypeGeneticsBiologyStructural variationBreakpointSegmental duplicationChromosomal inversionGene duplicationCopy-number variationChromosomeGenomeDirect repeatPopulationGeneKaryotypeAlleleMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most common genomic disorder, chromosome 22q11.2 microdeletion syndrome (22q11.2DS), is mediated by highly identical and polymorphic segmental duplications (SDs) known as low copy repeats (LCRs; regions A-D) that have been challenging to sequence and characterize. Here, we report the sequence-resolved genomic architecture of 135 chromosome 22q11.2 haplotypes from diverse 1000 Genomes Project samples. We find that more than 90% of the copy number variation is polarized to the most proximal LCR region A (LCRA) where 50 distinct structural configurations are observed (~189 kbp to ~2.15 Mbp or 11-fold length variation). A higher-order SD cassette structure of 105 kbp in length, flanked by 25 kbp long inverted repeats, drives this variation and emerged in the human-chimpanzee ancestral lineage later expanding in humans ~1.0 [0.8-1.2] million years ago. African LCRA haplotypes are significantly longer (p=0.0047) when compared to non-Africans yet are predicted to be more protected against recurrent microdeletions (p=0.00053) due to a preponderance of flanking SDs in an inverted orientation. Conversely, we identified nine distinct inversion polymorphisms, including five recurrent ~2.28 Mbp inversions extending across the critical region (LCRA-D) and four smaller inversions (two LCRA-B, one LCRC-D, and one LCRB-D); 7/9 of these events were identified in haplotypes of African and admixed American ancestry. Finally, we sequence and assemble four families and show that LCRA-D deletion breakpoints map to the 105 kbp repeat unit while inversion breakpoints associate with the 25 kbp repeats adjacent to palindromic AT-rich regions. In one family, we observe evidence of more complex unequal crossover events associated with gene conversion and multiple breakpoints. Our findings suggest that specific haplotype configurations are protective and susceptible to chromosome 22q11.2DS while recurrent large-scale inversions help to explain why this syndrome is less prevalent among individuals of African descent.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207