4.6 Article

Rare Recurrent Variants in Noncoding Regions Impact Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Gene Networks in Children of both African American and European American Ancestry

期刊

GENES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12020310

关键词

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder; whole genome sequence; noncoding regions; genetic variants

资金

  1. Institutional Development Funds from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study identified rare recurrent variants in noncoding regions that may be involved in the pathogenesis of ADHD, with a small number of overlapping ADHD-related genetic variants between different ethnicities. The findings suggest that whole genome sequencing could be a powerful tool for studying the molecular mechanisms of ADHD.
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder with poorly understood molecular mechanisms that results in significant impairment in children. In this study, we sought to assess the role of rare recurrent variants in non-European populations and outside of coding regions. We generated whole genome sequence (WGS) data on 875 individuals, including 205 ADHD cases and 670 non-ADHD controls. The cases included 116 African Americans (AA) and 89 European Americans (EA), and the controls included 408 AA and 262 EA. Multiple novel rare recurrent variants were identified in exonic regions, functionally classified as stop-gains and frameshifts for known ADHD genes. Deletion in introns of the protocadherins families and the ncRNA HGB8P were identified in two independent EA ADHD patients. A meta-analysis of the two ethnicities for differential ADHD recurrent variants compared to controls shows a small number of overlaps. These results suggest that rare recurrent variants in noncoding regions may be involved in the pathogenesis of ADHD in children of both AA and EA ancestry; thus, WGS could be a powerful discovery tool for studying the molecular mechanisms of ADHD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据