Back

De novo protein-coding gene variants in developmental stuttering

Eising, E.; Dzinovic, I.; Vino, A.; Stipdonk, L.; Pavlov, M.; Winkelmann, J.; Sommer, M.; Franken, M.-C.; Oexle, K.; Fisher, S. E.

2024-11-26 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.11.25.24317778 medRxiv
Show abstract

Stuttering is a common neurodevelopmental condition characterized by disfluencies in speech, such as blocks, prolongations, and repetitions. While most children who stutter do so only transiently, there are some for whom stuttering persists into adulthood. Rare-variant screens in families including multiple relatives with persistent stuttering have so far identified six genes carrying putative pathogenic variants hypothesized to act in a monogenic fashion. Here, we applied a complementary study design, searching instead for de novo variants in exomes of 85 independent parent-child trios, each with a child with transient or persistent stuttering. Exome sequencing analysis yielded a pathogenic variant in SPTBN1 as well as likely pathogenic variants in PRPF8, TRIO, and ZBTB7A - four genes previously implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders with or without speech problems. Our results also highlighted two further genes of interest for stuttering: FLT3 and IREB2. We used extensive bioinformatic approaches to investigate overlaps in brain-related processes among the twelve genes associated with monogenic forms of stuttering. Analyses of gene-expression datasets of the developing and adult human brain, and data from a genome-wide association study of human brain structural connectivity, did not find links of monogenic stuttering to specific brain processes. Overall, our results provide the first direct genetic link between stuttering and other neurodevelopmental disorders, including speech delay and aphasia. In addition, we systematically demonstrate a dissimilarity in biological pathways associated with the genes thus far implicated in monogenic forms of stuttering, indicating heterogeneity in the etiological basis of this condition.

Matching journals

The top 6 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.