Scholarlink

<p>Many copy number variants (CNVs) are implicated in neurodevelopmental disability, but exhibit incomplete penetrance. The definition of penetrance is often unclear. In published literature, penetrance typically includes the background risk of disease, while clinicians tend to exclude risks unrelated to the genetic variant. We propose a more clinically relevant definition of penetrance and develop a new formula for this. These changes are applied to existing data sources to produce updated penetrance estimates. Our findings indicate that most CNVs studied have significantly lower penetrance than previously published. Eleven CNVs, previously described as low-penetrant, are recalculated as having a penetrance close to 0% for intellectual disability. These include 1q21.1 proximal duplications [<i>RBM8A</i>], 2q11.2 deletions [<i>TMEM127</i>], 2q13 proximal deletions and duplications [<i>NPHP1</i>], 6q16 duplications [<i>SIM1</i>], 13q12 deletions [<i>CRYL1</i>], 15q11.2 duplications [<i>NIPA1</i>, <i>NIPA2</i>], 15q13.3 duplications [<i>CHRNA7</i>], 16p12.2 duplications [<i>CDR2</i>], 16p13.11 duplications [<i>MYH11</i>] and Xp22.3 duplications [<i>SHOX</i>]. Previous estimates of CNV penetrance, which ranged from 10–40% have been recalculated as 1–10%. In conclusion, many previously published estimates of CNV penetrance are inflated. Re-evaluation of existing data reveals lower and more accurate penetrance estimates for intellectual disability. This has important implications for diagnosis, genetic counselling, and prenatal reporting of recurrent CNVs.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Updated penetrance estimates for recurrent copy number variants – an improved definition and formula

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月15日

查看全文
  • Shuxiang Goh,
  • Tracy Dudding-Byth,
  • Mark Pinese,
  • Edwin P. Kirk

摘要

Many copy number variants (CNVs) are implicated in neurodevelopmental disability, but exhibit incomplete penetrance. The definition of penetrance is often unclear. In published literature, penetrance typically includes the background risk of disease, while clinicians tend to exclude risks unrelated to the genetic variant. We propose a more clinically relevant definition of penetrance and develop a new formula for this. These changes are applied to existing data sources to produce updated penetrance estimates. Our findings indicate that most CNVs studied have significantly lower penetrance than previously published. Eleven CNVs, previously described as low-penetrant, are recalculated as having a penetrance close to 0% for intellectual disability. These include 1q21.1 proximal duplications [RBM8A], 2q11.2 deletions [TMEM127], 2q13 proximal deletions and duplications [NPHP1], 6q16 duplications [SIM1], 13q12 deletions [CRYL1], 15q11.2 duplications [NIPA1, NIPA2], 15q13.3 duplications [CHRNA7], 16p12.2 duplications [CDR2], 16p13.11 duplications [MYH11] and Xp22.3 duplications [SHOX]. Previous estimates of CNV penetrance, which ranged from 10–40% have been recalculated as 1–10%. In conclusion, many previously published estimates of CNV penetrance are inflated. Re-evaluation of existing data reveals lower and more accurate penetrance estimates for intellectual disability. This has important implications for diagnosis, genetic counselling, and prenatal reporting of recurrent CNVs.