6 research outputs found
Genetic and environmental influences on verbal ability in older adults: findings from the older Australian twins study
Dose response of the 16p11.2 distal copy number variant on intracranial volume and basal ganglia
Carriers of large recurrent copy number variants (CNVs) have a higher risk of developing neurodevelopmental disorders. The 16p11.2 distal CNV predisposes carriers to e.g., autism spectrum disorder and schizophrenia. We compared subcortical brain volumes of 12 16p11.2 distal deletion and 12 duplication carriers to 6882 non-carriers from the large-scale brain Magnetic Resonance Imaging collaboration, ENIGMA-CNV. After stringent CNV calling procedures, and standardized FreeSurfer image analysis, we found negative dose-response associations with copy number on intracranial volume and on regional caudate, pallidum and putamen volumes (β = −0.71 to −1.37; P < 0.0005). In an independent sample, consistent results were obtained, with significant effects in the pallidum (β = −0.95, P = 0.0042). The two data sets combined showed significant negative dose-response for the accumbens, caudate, pallidum, putamen and ICV (P = 0.0032, 8.9 × 10−6, 1.7 × 10−9, 3.5 × 10−12 and 1.0 × 10−4, respectively). Full scale IQ was lower in both deletion and duplication carriers compared to non-carriers. This is the first brain MRI study of the impact of the 16p11.2 distal CNV, and we demonstrate a specific effect on subcortical brain structures, suggesting a neuropathological pattern underlying the neurodevelopmental syndromes.Correction: Sønderby, I.E., Gústafsson, Ó., Doan, N.T. et al. Correction: Dose response of the 16p11.2 distal copy number variant on intracranial volume and basal ganglia. Mol Psychiatry 25, 692–695 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0358-8</p
Correction: Dose response of the 16p11.2 distal copy number variant on intracranial volume and basal ganglia.
Prior to and following the publication of this article the authors noted that the complete list of authors was not included in the main article and was only present in Supplementary Table 1. The author list in the original article has now been updated to include all authors, and Supplementary Table 1 has been removed. All other supplementary files have now been updated accordingly. Furthermore, in Table 1 of this Article, the replication cohort for the row Close relative in data set, n (%) was incorrect. All values have now been corrected to 0(0%). The publishers would like to apologise for this error and the inconvenience it may have caused