4.8 Article

De novo variants in neurodevelopmental disorders with epilepsy

Journal

NATURE GENETICS
Volume 50, Issue 7, Pages 1048-+

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41588-018-0143-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Eurocores program EuroEPINOMICS
  2. Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO)
  3. International Coordination Action (ICA) [G0E8614N]
  4. University of Antwerp
  5. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany [FKZ: 01EO1501]
  6. German Research Foundation (DFG) [HE7987/1-1]
  7. Fund for Scientific Research Flanders [1125416N]
  8. DFG [WE4896/3-1, HE5415/6-1]
  9. EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) under the project DESIRE grant [N602531]
  10. Wellcome Trust [HICF-1009-003]
  11. Department of Health [HICF-1009-003]
  12. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute [WT098051]
  13. National Institute for Health Research, through the Comprehensive Clinical Research Network
  14. MRC [MR/J011231/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epilepsy is a frequent feature of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), but little is known about genetic differences between NDDs with and without epilepsy. We analyzed de novo variants (DNVs) in 6,753 parent-offspring trios ascertained to have different NDDs. In the subset of 1,942 individuals with NDDs with epilepsy, we identified 33 genes with a significant excess of DNVs, of which SNAP25 and GABRB2 had previously only limited evidence of disease association. Joint analysis of all individuals with NDDs also implicated CACNA1E as a novel disease-associated gene. Comparing NDDs with and without epilepsy, we found missense DNVs, DNVs in specific genes, age of recruitment, and severity of intellectual disability to be associated with epilepsy. We further demonstrate the extent to which our results affect current genetic testing as well as treatment, emphasizing the benefit of accurate genetic diagnosis in NDDs with epilepsy.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available