Back

Title Mapping the brain signature of dyslexia risk onto histamine, acetylcholine and glutamate receptor systems

Celik, M. C.; Cicek, Y.; Sakiroglu, M. A.; Aslan, D.; Altunc, A. T.; Velioglu, H. A.

2026-10-20 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.64898/2026.10.18.26365830 medRxiv
Show abstract

The brain differences of dyslexia are well described and its genetic risk is now measurable; the brain systems that connect the two are unknown. That link decides which measures complement one another in early identification and which systems intervention research should examine. Here we compared large-scale polygenic score maps of brain structure in dyslexia with normative maps of brain neurotransmitter systems. The structural signature of genetic liability aligned with the cortical distribution of neurotransmitter systems. The strongest and most consistent alignment appeared for the histamine H3 receptor, the vesicular acetylcholine transporter (VAChT) and the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor. The alignment was most pronounced in cingulate, medial and superior frontal cortex and the paracentral lobule. The H3 alignment held after adjustment for cortical position and for metabolic and cognitive reference maps. Once the component common to all nineteen maps and position were removed together, no individual system remained significant, while the shared component itself aligned with liability. The signature therefore follows the topography these systems share. In 169 children, per-person alignment with the H3 map related to reading skill with the opposite sign to liability. To our knowledge, this is the first study to relate the structural signature of genetic liability for dyslexia to normative maps of neurotransmitter receptor and transporter density. It places that signature within the shared geography of the systems that set attention, arousal and synaptic plasticity during learning, and gives the genetics of dyslexia a testable biological axis.

Matching journals

The top 10 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.