Back

Recessive loss-of-function and dominant gain-of-function variants in FBXO31 are associated with distinct neurodevelopmental disorders

Boehnlein, J.; Weiss, B.; Hirsch, S.; Maass, J. G.; Obeid, K.; Hinderhofer, K.; Schroeder, S.; Saemann, B.; Hempel, M.; Sailer, S.

2026-09-30 genetic and genomic medicine
10.64898/2026.09.24.26363382 medRxiv
Show abstract

FBXO31 encodes the substrate receptor of an SCF (SKP1-CUL1-F-box) E3 ubiquitin ligase that recognizes C-terminal amide-bearing proteins (CTAPs) and targets them for proteasomal degradation, a function of particular importance in neurons. A recurrent de novo missense variant, c.1000G>A p.(Asp334Asn), reprograms FBXO31 substrate specificity and causes an autosomal-dominant neurodevelopmental disorder with spastic cerebral palsy through a neomorphic gain-of-function mechanism. By contrast, biallelic loss of function has tentatively been linked to a recessive disorder. Here we report a female patient, born to consanguineous parents, with moderate intellectual disability, developmental delay and dysmorphic features, who carries a homozygous 54.3 kb deletion removing exons 2-8 and the coding part of exon 9 of FBXO31. The deletion retains only the exon 1-encoded F-box domain, while removing the coding sequence for the entire C-terminal substrate-recognition region. It is predicted to result in loss of function. Segregation is consistent with autosomal-recessive inheritance, with both parents and three of five unaffected siblings being heterozygous carriers. Together with two previously reported recessive families and the experimentally established neomorphic action of p.(Asp334Asn), the homozygous deletion supports an FBXO31 allelic series comprising dominant gain of function and recessive biallelic loss of function.

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.