Back

Genetic modifiers and ascertainment drive variable expressivity of complex disorders

Jensen, M.; Smolen, C.; Tyryshkina, A.; Pizzo, L.; Banerjee, D.; Oetjens, M.; Shimelis, H.; Taylor, C.; Pounraja, V. K.; Song, H.; Rohan, L.; Huber, E.; El Khattabi, L.; van de Laar, I.; Tadros, R.; Bezzina, C.; van Slegtenhorst, M.; Kammeraad, J.; Prontera, P.; Caberg, J.-H.; Fraser, H.; Banka, S.; Van Dijck, A.; Schwartz, C.; Voorhoeve, E.; Callier, P.; Mosca-Boidron, A.-L.; Marle, N.; Lefebvre, M.; Pope, K.; Snell, P.; Boys, A.; Lockhart, P. J.; Ashfaq, M.; McCready, E.; Nowacyzk, M.; Castiglia, L.; Galesi, O.; Avola, E.; Mattina, T.; Fichera, M.; Bruccheri, M. G.; Mandara, G. M. L.; Mari,

2024-08-28 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.08.27.24312158 medRxiv
Show abstract

Variable expressivity of disease-associated variants implies a role for secondary variants that modify clinical features. We assessed the effects of modifier variants towards clinical outcomes of 2,252 individuals with primary variants. Among 132 families with the 16p12.1 deletion, distinct rare and common variant classes conferred risk for specific developmental features, including short tandem repeats for neurological defects and SNVs for microcephaly, while additional disease-associated variants conferred multiple genetic diagnoses. Within disease and population cohorts of 773 individuals with the 16p12.1 deletion, we found opposing effects of secondary variants towards clinical features across ascertainments. Additional analysis of 1,479 probands with other primary variants, such as 16p11.2 deletion and CHD8 variants, and 1,084 without primary variants, showed that phenotypic associations differed by primary variant context and were influenced by synergistic interactions between primary and secondary variants. Our study provides a paradigm to dissect the genomic architecture of complex disorders towards personalized treatment.

Published in Cell (predicted rank #5) · training set

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.