Rare coding mutations identify 36 large-effect risk genes in obsessive-compulsive disorder and chronic tic disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and chronic tic disorders (CTD) are highly heritable. Recent progress in OCD genomics has highlighted small-effect common alleles. Rare mutations have previously been found to carry large risks for OCD and CTD but only four high-confidence (hc) genes have been identified. We analyzed whole-exome sequencing data from 3,964 individuals with OCD, CTD, or both, including 2,418 trios. We find an excess in cases of de novo and rare protein-damaging mutations and identify 36 hc genes (false discovery rate [FDR] < 0.1), four of which overlap with OCD GWAS loci. Risk genes are shared among OCD, CTD, autism spectrum disorder, and other neurodevelopmental conditions. Transcriptomic and network analyses highlight mechanistic convergence and increased risk gene expression in postnatal cerebellum and pre- and postnatal cortex and striatum. Dozens of large-effect OCDCTD genes offer insights into pathogenesis and a path forward for illuminating pathophysiology and identifying novel treatment targets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".