MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6957959996 · doi:10.60692/b76r6-dv333

Rare variants in KDR, encoding VEGF Receptor 2, are associated with tetralogy of Fallot

2021· article· en· W6957959996 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiofield Effects and Biophysics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMissense mutationPathogenesisExome sequencingTetralogy of FallotGenetic variantsExomeMutationGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rare genetic variants in KDR, encoding the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2), have been reported in patients with tetralogy of Fallot (TOF). However, their role in disease causality and pathogenesis remains unclear.We conducted exome sequencing in a familial case of TOF and large-scale genetic studies, including burden testing, in >1,500 patients with TOF. We studied gene-targeted mice and conducted cell-based assays to explore the role of KDR genetic variation in the etiology of TOF.Exome sequencing in a family with two siblings affected by TOF revealed biallelic missense variants in KDR. Studies in knock-in mice and in HEK 293T cells identified embryonic lethality for one variant when occurring in the homozygous state, and a significantly reduced VEGFR2 phosphorylation for both variants. Rare variant burden analysis conducted in a set of 1,569 patients of European descent with TOF identified a 46-fold enrichment of protein-truncating variants (PTVs) in TOF cases compared to controls (P = 7 × 10-11).Rare KDR variants, in particular PTVs, strongly associate with TOF, likely in the setting of different inheritance patterns. Supported by genetic and in vivo and in vitro functional analysis, we propose loss-of-function of VEGFR2 as one of the mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of TOF.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicBiofield Effects and BiophysicsFrench-language works237,207