Balanced chromosomal rearrangements offer insights into coding and noncoding genomic features associated with developmental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Balanced chromosomal rearrangements (BCRs), including inversions, translocations, and insertions, reorganize large sections of the genome and contribute substantial risk for developmental disorders (DDs). However, the rarity and lack of systematic screening for BCRs in the population has precluded unbiased analyses of the genomic features and mechanisms associated with risk for DDs versus normal developmental outcomes. Here, we sequenced and analyzed 1,420 BCR breakpoints across 710 individuals, including 406 DD cases and the first large-scale collection of 304 control BCR carriers. We found that BCRs were not more likely to disrupt genes in DD cases than controls, but were seven-fold more likely to disrupt genes associated with dominant DDs (21.3% of cases vs. 3.4% of controls; P = 1.60×10 −12 ). Moreover, BCRs that did not disrupt a known DD gene were significantly enriched for breakpoints that altered topologically associated domains (TADs) containing dominant DD genes in cases compared to controls (odds ratio [OR] = 1.43, P = 0.036). We discovered six TADs enriched for noncoding BCRs (false discovery rate < 0.1) that contained known DD genes ( MEF2C, FOXG1, SOX9, BCL11A, BCL11B , and SATB2 ) and represent candidate pathogenic long-range positional effect (LRPE) loci. These six TADs were collectively disrupted in 7.4% of the DD cohort. Phased Hi-C analyses of five cases with noncoding BCR breakpoints localized to one of these putative LRPEs, the 5q14.3 TAD encompassing MEF2C , confirmed extensive disruption to local 3D chromatin structures and reduced frequency of contact between the MEF2C promoter and annotated enhancers. We further identified six genomic features enriched in TADs preferentially disrupted by noncoding BCRs in DD cases versus controls and used these features to build a model to predict TADs at risk for LRPEs across the genome. These results emphasize the potential impact of noncoding structural variants to cause LRPEs in unsolved DD cases, as well as the complex interaction of features associated with predicting three-dimensional chromatin structures intolerant to disruption.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".