Back

ATR16 Syndrome: Mechanisms Linking Monosomy to Phenotype

Babbs, C.; Brown, J.; Horsley, S. W.; Slater, J.; Maifoshie, E.; Kumar, S.; Ooijevaar, P.; Kriek, M.; Dixon-McIver, A.; Harteveld, C. L.; Traeger-Synodinos, J.; Higgs, D.; Buckle, V. J.

2019-10-07 genetics
10.1101/768895 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundSporadic deletions removing 100s-1000s kb of DNA, and variable numbers of poorly characterised genes, are often found in patients with a wide range of developmental abnormalities. In such cases, understanding the contribution of the deletion to an individuals clinical phenotype is challenging.\n\nMethodsHere, as an example of this common phenomenon, we analysed 34 patients with simple deletions of [~]177 to [~]2000 kb affecting one allele of the well characterised, gene dense, distal region of chromosome 16 (16p13.3), referred to as ATR-16 syndrome. We characterised precise deletion extent and screened for genetic background effects, telomere position effect and compensatory up regulation of hemizygous genes.\n\nResultsWe find the risk of developmental and neurological abnormalities arises from much smaller terminal chromosome 16 deletions ([~]400 kb) than previously reported. Beyond this, the severity of ATR-16 syndrome increases with deletion size, but there is no evidence that critical regions determine the developmental abnormalities associated with this disorder. Surprisingly, we find no evidence of telomere position effect or compensatory upregulation of hemizygous genes, however, genetic background effects substantially modify phenotypic abnormalities.\n\nConclusionsUsing ATR-16 as a general model of disorders caused by sporadic copy number variations, we show the degree to which individuals with contiguous gene syndromes are affected is not simply related to the number of genes deleted but also depends on their genetic background. We also show there is no critical region defining the degree of phenotypic abnormalities in ATR-16 syndrome and this has important implications for genetic counselling.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.9%
2
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.8%
3
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
The American Journal of Human Genetics
206 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
6.5%
5
Human Molecular Genetics
130 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.4%
6
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.7%
7
American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
8
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.4%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.9%
10
Human Mutation
29 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
11
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.7%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.5%
14
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
15
Genetic Epidemiology
46 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
16
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
17
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
70 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
18
Genome Research
409 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
19
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
20
Nature Genetics
240 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
21
Genetics in Medicine Open
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.7%
22
Genome Medicine
154 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.7%
23
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.7%
24
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 49%
0.5%