Cited by 84Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersWilliams Syndrome Research

The number of genomic copies at the 16p11.2 locus modulates language, verbal memory, and inhibition

Open access
Hippolyte, Loyse, Maillard, Anne M., Rodriguez-Herreros, Borja, Pain, Aurélie, Martin-Brevet, Sandra, Ferrari, Carina, Conus, Philippe, Macé, Aurélien +24 more·2016·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Deletions and duplications of the 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 locus are prevalent copy number variations (CNVs), highly associated with autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia. Beyond language and global cognition, neuropsychological assessments of these two CNVs have not yet been reported. METHODS: This study investigates the relationship between the number of genomic copies at the 16p11.2 locus and cognitive domains assessed in 62 deletion carriers, 44 duplication carriers, and 71 intrafamilial control subjects. RESULTS: IQ is decreased in deletion and duplication carriers, but we demonstrate contrasting cognitive profiles in these reciprocal CNVs. Deletion carriers present with severe impairments of phonology and of inhibition skills beyond what is expected for their IQ level. In contrast, for verbal memory and phonology, the data may suggest that duplication carriers outperform intrafamilial control subjects with the same IQ level. This finding is reminiscent of special isolated skills as well as contrasting language performance observed in autism spectrum disorder. Some domains, such as visuospatial and working memory, are unaffected by the 16p11.2 locus beyond the effect of decreased IQ. Neuroimaging analyses reveal that measures of inhibition covary with neuroanatomic structures previously identified as sensitive to 16p11.2 CNVs. CONCLUSIONS: The simultaneous study of reciprocal CNVs suggests that the 16p11.2 genomic locus modulates specific cognitive skills according to the number of genomic copies. Further research is warranted to replicate these findings and elucidate the molecular mechanisms modulating these cognitive performances.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biopsych.2015.10.021

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • De novo and inherited 16p11.2 deletion carriers do not perform differently on several cognitive tasks.

    “However, de novo and inherited deletion carriers do not perform differently on several cognitive tasks [35].”
  • Several supporting studies also reported lower FSIQ scores in 16p11.2 deletion and duplication patients than in intrafamilial controls.

    “Several supporting studies also reported lower FSIQ scores in 16p11.2 deletion [12, 35] and duplication [19, 35] patients than intrafamilial controls.”
  • Studies of cognition and language in 16p11.2 reciprocal deletion and duplication carriers report opposite effects on particular language skills: deletion carriers perform worse and duplication carriers perform better than IQ-matched controls.

    “Cognitive and language studies in carriers of the reciprocal deletions and duplication of 16p11.2 have reported mirror effects on specific linguistic skills, deletion carriers having reduced performance and and duplication carriers having greater performance than IQ-matched controls (Hippolyte et al., 2016).”

    From Getting to the cores of autism (2019) · cites this paper as Hippolyte et al., 2016

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Elliot C (2006): Differential Abilities Scale-2nd Edition (DAS-II). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
  2. Culbertson WC, Zillmer EA (2009): Tower of London-Drexel University, 2ème edition. Technical Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems Inc.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hippolyte, L., Maillard, A. M., Rodriguez-Herreros, B., Pain, A., Martin-Brevet, S., Ferrari, C., Conus, P., Macé, A., Hadjikhani, N., Metspalu, A., Reigo, A., Kolk, A., Männik, K., Barker, M., Isidor, B., Le Caignec, C., Mignot, C., Schneider, L., Mottron, L., Keren, B., David, A., Doco-Fenzy, M., Gérard, M., Bernier, R., Goin-Kochel, R. P., Hanson, E., Green Snyder, L., Ramus, F., Beckmann, J. S., Draganski, B., Reymond, A., & Jacquemont, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
  • SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Tartu University Hospital (EE)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes (FR)
  • Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois (CH)
  • Hôpital Rivière-des-Prairies (CA)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
Corresponding author
Jacquemont, Sébastien
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
80
Issue
2
Pages
129-139
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2175782740
Cited by
84
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 4
FWCI
6.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Leenaards Foundation Prize (SJ, AR and NH), a Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Sinergia (CRIS FN CRSII33-133044)
  • Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative (SFARI274424)
  • Swiss National Science Foundation (320030_135679, SPUM 33CM30_140332/1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Developmental Neuroscience › Williams Syndrome Research
Keywords
copy number variation, 16p11.2 deletion, 16p11.2 duplication, language, phonology, verbal memory, inhibition, IQ, autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, working memory, visuospatial memory, neuroanatomy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Autistic Disorder, Child, Child, Preschool, Chromosome Deletion, Chromosomes, Human, Pair 16, Female, Heterozygote, Humans, Intelligence, Language, Male, Memory, Intellectual Disability, Middle Aged, Motor Skills, Pedigree, Chromosome Disorders, Young Adult, Executive Function, DNA Copy Number Variations, Chromosome Duplication, Cognitive Dysfunction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review