Intronic FGF14 GAA repeat expansions impact progression and survival in multiple system atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial phenotypic overlap has been suggested between multiple system atrophy and spinocerebellar ataxia 27B, the autosomal dominant ataxia caused by an intronic GAA•TTC repeat expansion in FGF14. In this study, we investigated the frequency of FGF14 GAA•TTC repeat expansion in clinically diagnosed and pathologically confirmed multiple system atrophy cases. We screened 657 multiple system atrophy cases (193 clinically diagnosed and 464 pathologically confirmed) and 1003 controls. The FGF14 repeat locus was genotyped using long-range PCR and bidirectional repeat-primed PCRs, and expansions were confirmed with targeted long-read Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing. We identified 19 multiple system atrophy cases carrying an FGF14 GAA≥250 expansion (2.89%, n = 19/657), a significantly higher frequency than in controls (1.40%, n = 12/1003) (P = 0.04). Long-read Oxford Nanopore Technologies sequencing confirmed repeat sizes and polymorphisms detected by PCR, with high concordance (Pearson's r = 0.99, P < 0.0001). Seven multiple system atrophy patients had a pathogenic FGF14 GAA≥300 expansion (five pathologically confirmed and two clinically diagnosed), and 12 had intermediate GAA250-299 expansion (six pathologically confirmed and six clinically diagnosed). A similar proportion of cerebellar-predominant and parkinsonism-predominant multiple system atrophy cases had FGF14 expansions. Multiple system atrophy patients carrying an FGF14 GAA≥250 expansion exhibited severe gait ataxia, autonomic dysfunction and parkinsonism, in keeping with a multiple system atrophy phenotype, with a faster progression to falls (P = 0.03) and regular wheelchair use (P = 0.02) in comparison to the multiple system atrophy cases without FGF14 GAA expansion. The length of the GAA•TTC repeat expansion lengths was inversely correlated with survival in multiple system atrophy patients (r = -0.67; P = 0.02) but not with age of onset. Therefore, screening for FGF14 GAA•TTC repeat expansion should be considered for multiple system atrophy patients with rapid loss of mobility and for complete diagnostic accuracy at inclusion in disease-modifying multiple system atrophy drug trials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".