Cited by 442Genomics and Rare DiseasesGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersDown syndrome and intellectual disability research

Meta-analysis of 2,104 trios provides support for 10 new genes for intellectual disability

Open access
Lelieveld, Stefan H, Reijnders, Margot R F, Pfundt, Rolph, Yntema, Helger G, Kamsteeg, Erik-Jan, de Vries, Petra, de Vries, Bert B A, Willemsen, Marjolein H +14 more·2016·Nature Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

To identify candidate genes for intellectual disability, we performed a meta-analysis on 2,637 de novo mutations, identified from the exomes of 2,104 patient-parent trios. Statistical analyses identified 10 new candidate ID genes: DLG4, PPM1D, RAC1, SMAD6, SON, SOX5, SYNCRIP, TCF20, TLK2 and TRIP12. In addition, we show that these genes are intolerant to nonsynonymous variation and that mutations in these genes are associated with specific clinical ID phenotypes.

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 · 10.1038/nn.4352

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • The prevalence of ASD in several ID/DD-ascertained cohorts is not quantified, and the prevalence of ID in ASD-ascertained cohorts is known only for a minority subset of participants.

    “Because of this bias, the phenotypic overlap between the groups is unclear; the prevalence of ASD in several of the ID/DD-ascertained cohorts is not quantified,13, 14, 15,18,19 and the prevalence of ID in the ASD-ascertained cohorts is known only for a minority subset of participants.11,12”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

  • The ID/DD cohorts evaluated in the Satterstrom and Coe studies overlapped almost completely; each study used samples from five previously published studies, and four of the five were the same studies, accounting for 99% of the samples.

    “In fact, the ID/DD cohorts evaluated in these two studies overlapped almost completely; each study used samples from five previously published studies, and four of the five were the same studies, accounting for 99% of the samples.11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [15]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. O'Roak, B.J. et al. Nat. Commun. 5, 5595 (2014).
  2. Zhu, J., He, F., Song, S., Wang, J. & Yu, J. BMC Genomics 9, 172 (2008).
  3. Petrovski, S., Wang, Q., Heinzen, E.L., Allen, A.S. & Goldstein, D.B. PLoS Genet. 9, e1003709 (2013).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lelieveld, S. H., Reijnders, M. R. F., Pfundt, R., Yntema, H. G., Kamsteeg, E.-J., de Vries, P., de Vries, B. B. A., Willemsen, M. H., Kleefstra, T., Löhner, K., Vreeburg, M., Stevens, S. J. C., van der Burgt, I., Bongers, E. M. H. F., Stegmann, A. P. A., Rump, P., Rinne, T., Nelen, M. R., Veltman, J. A., Vissers, L. E. L. M., Brunner, H. G., & Gilissen, C.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
Corresponding author
Gilissen, Christian
Venue
Nature Neuroscience
Published
2016-08-01
Volume
19
Issue
9
Pages
1194-1196
ISSN
  • 1097-6256 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1726
OpenAlex
W2506784803
Cited by
442
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 10
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
Keywords
intellectual disability, de novo mutations, novel candidate genes, exome sequencing, clinical phenotype, PSD-95, PPM1D, Rac1, Smad6, sons, SOX5, SYNCRIP, TLK2, TRIP12
MeSH terms
Protein Phosphatase 2C, Disks Large Homolog 4 Protein, Carrier Proteins, DNA-Binding Proteins, Humans, Membrane Proteins, Intellectual Disability, Mutation, Phenotype, Protein Kinases, Transcription Factors, Minor Histocompatibility Antigens, rac1 GTP-Binding Protein, Heterogeneous-Nuclear Ribonucleoproteins, Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases, Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Smad6 Protein, SOXD Transcription Factors, Exome

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