BACKGROUND: The causes of intellectual disability remain largely unknown because of extensive clinical and genetic heterogeneity. METHODS: We evaluated patients with intellectual disability to exclude known causes of the disorder. We then sequenced the coding regions of more than 21,000 genes obtained from 100 patients with an IQ below 50 and their unaffected parents. A data-analysis procedure was developed to identify and classify de novo, autosomal recessive, and X-linked mutations. In addition, we used high-throughput resequencing to confirm new candidate genes in 765 persons with intellectual disability (a confirmation series). All mutations were evaluated by molecular geneticists and clinicians in the context of the patients' clinical presentation. RESULTS: We identified 79 de novo mutations in 53 of 100 patients. A total of 10 de novo mutations and 3 X-linked (maternally inherited) mutations that had been previously predicted to compromise the function of known intellectual-disability genes were found in 13 patients. Potentially causative de novo mutations in novel candidate genes were detected in 22 patients. Additional de novo mutations in 3 of these candidate genes were identified in patients with similar phenotypes in the confirmation series, providing support for mutations in these genes as the cause of intellectual disability. We detected no causative autosomal recessive inherited mutations in the discovery series. Thus, the total diagnostic yield was 16%, mostly involving de novo mutations. CONCLUSIONS: De novo mutations represent an important cause of intellectual disability; exome sequencing was used as an effective diagnostic strategy for their detection. (Funded by the European Union and others.).
BACKGROUND: The causes of intellectual disability remain largely unknown because of extensive clinical and genetic heterogeneity. METHODS: We evaluated patients with intellectual disability to exclude known causes of the disorder. We then sequenced the coding regions of more than 21,000 genes obtained from 100 patients with an IQ below 50 and their unaffected parents. A data-analysis procedure was developed to identify and classify de novo, autosomal recessive, and X-linked mutations. In addition, we used high-throughput resequencing to confirm new candidate genes in 765 persons with intellectual disability (a confirmation series). All mutations were evaluated by molecular geneticists and clinicians in the context of the patients' clinical presentation. RESULTS: We identified 79 de novo mutations in 53 of 100 patients. A total of 10 de novo mutations and 3 X-linked (maternally inherited) mutations that had been previously predicted to compromise the function of known intellectual-disability genes were found in 13 patients. Potentially causative de novo mutations in novel candidate genes were detected in 22 patients. Additional de novo mutations in 3 of these candidate genes were identified in patients with similar phenotypes in the confirmation series, providing support for mutations in these genes as the cause of intellectual disability. We detected no causative autosomal recessive inherited mutations in the discovery series. Thus, the total diagnostic yield was 16%, mostly involving de novo mutations. CONCLUSIONS: De novo mutations represent an important cause of intellectual disability; exome sequencing was used as an effective diagnostic strategy for their detection. (Funded by the European Union and others.).
Authors: Stefan H Lelieveld; Laurens Wiel; Hanka Venselaar; Rolph Pfundt; Gerrit Vriend; Joris A Veltman; Han G Brunner; Lisenka E L M Vissers; Christian Gilissen Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Deidre R Krupp; Rebecca A Barnard; Yannis Duffourd; Sara A Evans; Ryan M Mulqueen; Raphael Bernier; Jean-Baptiste Rivière; Eric Fombonne; Brian J O'Roak Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Ivan Prokudin; Cas Simons; John R Grigg; Rebecca Storen; Vikrant Kumar; Zai Y Phua; James Smith; Maree Flaherty; Sonia Davila; Robyn V Jamieson Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Jeffrey Staples; Evan K Maxwell; Nehal Gosalia; Claudia Gonzaga-Jauregui; Christopher Snyder; Alicia Hawes; John Penn; Ricardo Ulloa; Xiaodong Bai; Alexander E Lopez; Cristopher V Van Hout; Colm O'Dushlaine; Tanya M Teslovich; Shane E McCarthy; Suganthi Balasubramanian; H Lester Kirchner; Joseph B Leader; Michael F Murray; David H Ledbetter; Alan R Shuldiner; George D Yancoupolos; Frederick E Dewey; David J Carey; John D Overton; Aris Baras; Lukas Habegger; Jeffrey G Reid Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-05-03 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Yuwen Liu; Yanyu Liang; A Ercument Cicek; Zhongshan Li; Jinchen Li; Rebecca A Muhle; Martina Krenzer; Yue Mei; Yan Wang; Nicholas Knoblauch; Jean Morrison; Siming Zhao; Yi Jiang; Evan Geller; Iuliana Ionita-Laza; Jinyu Wu; Kun Xia; James P Noonan; Zhong Sheng Sun; Xin He Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2018-05-10 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Riley E Perszyk; Scott J Myers; Hongjie Yuan; Alasdair J Gibb; Hiro Furukawa; Alexander I Sobolevsky; Stephen F Traynelis Journal: J Physiol Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Vandana Shashi; Loren D M Pena; Katherine Kim; Barbara Burton; Maja Hempel; Kelly Schoch; Magdalena Walkiewicz; Heather M McLaughlin; Megan Cho; Nicholas Stong; Scott E Hickey; Christine M Shuss; Michael S Freemark; Jane S Bellet; Martha Ann Keels; Melanie J Bonner; Maysantoine El-Dairi; Megan Butler; Peter G Kranz; Constance T R M Stumpel; Sylvia Klinkenberg; Karin Oberndorff; Malik Alawi; Rene Santer; Slavé Petrovski; Outi Kuismin; Satu Korpi-Heikkilä; Olli Pietilainen; Palotie Aarno; Mitja I Kurki; Alexander Hoischen; Anna C Need; David B Goldstein; Fanny Kortüm Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 11.025