Cited by 347Genetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesGenomics and Rare Diseases

Neurodevelopmental disease genes implicated by de novo mutation and copy number variation morbidity

Open access
Coe, Bradley P., Stessman, Holly A. F., Sulovari, Arvis, Geisheker, Madeleine R., Bakken, Trygve E., Lake, Allison M., Dougherty, Joseph D., Lein, Ed S. +3 more·2019·Nature Genetics

Abstract

We combined de novo mutation (DNM) data from 10,927 individuals with developmental delay and autism to identify 253 candidate neurodevelopmental disease genes with an excess of missense and/or likely gene-disruptive (LGD) mutations. Of these genes, 124 reach exome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-7) for DNM. Intersecting these results with copy number variation (CNV) morbidity data shows an enrichment for genomic disorder regions (30/253, likelihood ratio (LR) +1.85, P = 0.0017). We identify genes with an excess of missense DNMs overlapping deletion syndromes (for example, KIF1A and the 2q37 deletion) as well as duplication syndromes, such as recurrent MAPK3 missense mutations within the chromosome 16p11.2 duplication, recurrent CHD4 missense DNMs in the 12p13 duplication region, and recurrent WDFY4 missense DNMs in the 10q11.23 duplication region. Network analyses of genes showing an excess of DNMs highlights functional networks, including cell-specific enrichments in the D1+ and D2+ spiny neurons of the striatum.

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/s41588-018-0288-4

Cites

110 of 110 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?

  • Many top-ranking autism risk factors are genes implicated in synaptic homeostasis, transcriptional regulation, and chromatin remodeling.

    “Large scale genetic screenings have revealed that many of the identified top-ranking autism risk factors are genes implicated in synaptic homeostasis, transcriptional regulation and chromatin remodeling pathways 140–142.”
  • No genes have been identified that, when mutated, confer only ASD risk and not risk for ID or other NDDs.

    “To date, no genes have been identified that, when mutated, confer only ASD risk and not risk for ID or other NDDs.”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • 72% of genes predicted to be significant by the two statistical models in Coe et al. showed evidence of excess de novo variants in both ASD and ID/DD cohorts.

    “In fact, 72% of genes predicted to be significant by the two statistical models showed evidence of excess de novo variants in both ASD and ID/DD cohorts.”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • A significant problem with the cohort-ascertainment-based approach is potential bias introduced by the unequal opportunity for each participant to receive each diagnosis due to the lack of uniform phenotyping across studies.

    “Although pragmatic in terms of data availability, a significant problem with the cohort-ascertainment-based approach used in the Satterstrom et al.11 and Coe et al.12 studies is the potential bias introduced by the unequal opportunity for each participant to receive each diagnosis (i.e., ASD and ID) due to the lack of uniform phenotyping across studies.”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

  • Coe et al. did not find evidence of ASD specificity for any of the 253 candidate NDD genes they identified.

    “Coe et al.12 also compared the distribution of likely gene-disruptive mutations between ASD- and ID/DD-ascertained cohorts but did not find evidence of ASD specificity for any of the 253 genes they identified as candidate NDD genes based on evidence of excess of de novo mutations through the use of two statistical models.”

    From Insufficient Evidence for “Autism-Specific” Genes (2020) · cites this paper as [12]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coe, B. P., Stessman, H. A. F., Sulovari, A., Geisheker, M. R., Bakken, T. E., Lake, A. M., Dougherty, J. D., Lein, E. S., Hormozdiari, F., Bernier, R. A., & Eichler, E. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Creighton University (US)
  • Allen Institute for Brain Science (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Eichler, Evan E.
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2018-12-17
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
106-116
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2903850738
Cited by
330
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
24.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Brain and Behavior Research Foundation
  • Brain Research Foundation
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  • Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative
  • Nature
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH107515, R01MH101221)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM007266)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD087011)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
de novo mutations, copy number variation, developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder, missense mutations, genomic disorders, KIF1A, ERK1, 16p11.2 duplication, CHD4, gene regulatory networks
MeSH terms
Animals, Autistic Disorder, Developmental Disabilities, Chromosome Aberrations, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Mutation, Phenotype, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Intracellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins, Mice, Mi-2 Nucleosome Remodeling and Deacetylase Complex, DNA Copy Number Variations, Exome, Neurodevelopmental Disorders

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