Beyond the Global Brain Differences: Intraindividual Variability Differences in 1q21.1 Distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 Deletion Carriers

Background: Carriers of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants exhibit regional and global brain differences compared with noncarriers. However, interpreting regional differences is challenging if a global difference drives the regional brain differences. Intraindividual variability measures can be used to test for regional differences beyond global differences in brain structure. Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging data were used to obtain regional brain values for 1q21.1 distal deletion (n = 30) and duplication (n = 27) and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion (n = 170) and duplication (n = 243) carriers and matched noncarriers (n = 2350). Regional intra-deviation scores, i.e., the standardized difference between an individual's regional difference and global difference, were used to test for regional differences that diverge from the global difference. Results: For the 1q21.1 distal deletion carriers, cortical surface area for regions in the medial visual cortex, posterior cingulate, and temporal pole differed less and regions in the prefrontal and superior temporal cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical surface area. For the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion carriers, cortical thickness in regions in the medial visual cortex, auditory cortex, and temporal pole differed less and the prefrontal and somatosensory cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical thickness. Conclusions: We find evidence for regional effects beyond differences in global brain measures in 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants. The results provide new insight into brain profiling of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants, with the potential to increase understanding of the mechanisms involved in altered neurodevelopment

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 &lt; 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