4.6 Article

Outcome of array CGH analysis for 255 subjects with intellectual disability and search for candidate genes using bioinformatics

Journal

HUMAN GENETICS
Volume 128, Issue 2, Pages 179-194

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00439-010-0837-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) [MOP 74502, MOP 64217]
  2. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (MESL)
  3. Ontario Mental Health Foundation
  4. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
  5. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  6. National Institutes of Health [GM076990]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Array CGH enables the detection of pathogenic copy number variants (CNVs) in 5-15% of individuals with intellectual disability (ID), making it a promising tool for uncovering ID candidate genes. However, most CNVs encompass multiple genes, making it difficult to identify key disease gene(s) underlying ID etiology. Using array CGH we identified 47 previously unreported unique CNVs in 45/255 probands. We prioritized ID candidate genes using five bioinformatic gene prioritization web tools. Gene priority lists were created by comparing integral genes from each CNV from our ID cohort with sets of training genes specific either to ID or randomly selected. Our findings suggest that different training sets alter gene prioritization only moderately; however, only the ID gene training set resulted in significant enrichment of genes with nervous system function (19%) in prioritized versus non-prioritized genes from the same de novo CNVs (7%, p < 0.05). This enrichment further increased to 31% when the five web tools were used in concert and included genes within mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction pathways. Gene prioritization web tools enrich for genes with relevant function in ID and more readily facilitate the selection of ID candidate genes for functional studies, particularly for large CNVs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available