Back

Rare germline disorders implicate long non-coding RNAs disrupted by chromosomal structural rearrangements

Andersen, R. E.; Alkuraya, I. F.; Ajeesh, A.; Sakamoto, T.; Mena, E. L.; Amr, S. S.; Romi, H.; Kenna, M. A.; Robson, C. D.; Wilch, E. S.; Nalbandian, K.; Pina-Aguilar, R.; Walsh, C. A.; Morton, C. C.

2024-06-19 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.06.16.24307499 medRxiv
Show abstract

In recent years, there has been increased focus on exploring the role the non-protein-coding genome plays in Mendelian disorders. One class of particular interest is long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), which has recently been implicated in the regulation of diverse molecular processes. However, because lncRNAs do not encode protein, there is uncertainty regarding what constitutes a pathogenic lncRNA variant, and thus annotating such elements is challenging. The Developmental Genome Anatomy Project (DGAP) and similar projects recruit individuals with apparently balanced chromosomal abnormalities (BCAs) that disrupt or dysregulate genes in order to annotate the human genome. We hypothesized that rearrangements disrupting lncRNAs could be the underlying genetic etiology for the phenotypes of a subset of these individuals. Thus, we assessed 279 cases with BCAs and selected 191 cases with simple BCAs (breakpoints at only two genomic locations) for further analysis of lncRNA disruptions. From these, we identified 66 cases in which the chromosomal rearrangements directly disrupt lncRNAs. Strikingly, the lncRNAs MEF2C-AS1 and ENSG00000257522 are each disrupted in two unrelated cases. Furthermore, in 30 cases, no genes of any other class aside from lncRNAs are directly disrupted, consistent with the hypothesis that lncRNA disruptions could underly the phenotypes of these individuals. To showcase the power of this genomic approach for annotating lncRNAs, here we focus on clinical reports and genetic analysis of two individuals with BCAs and additionally highlight six individuals with likely developmental etiologies due to lncRNA disruptions.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
41.6%
2
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.8%
50% of probability mass above
3
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.8%
4
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.5%
5
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
6
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
7
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.9%
8
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.5%
9
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.2%
10
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.2%
11
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
12
Human Genetics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.7%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 44%
1.6%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.6%
16
Genetics in Medicine Open
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
17
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
18
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.8%
19
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.8%
22
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
23
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
25
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.5%
26
Brain
154 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%