Search PubMedSearch

Biomedical subjects

Meghan C Towne

Publications and source records attributed to Meghan C Towne.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

De novo variants in the poly(rC)-binding protein gene PCBP1 cause a neurodevelopmental disorder.

Poly(rC)-binding protein 1 (PCBP1), a splicing factor and key member of the hnRNP E family, was initially characterized for its tumor suppressive properties. More recently, its role in gene regulation in the brain and nervous system has attracted growing interest. Through an international multicenter collaboration, we identified 16 de novo pathogenic variants in PCBP1 across 17 subjects from 16 unrelated families. All affected individuals exhibited intellectual disability (ID), with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as a prominent feature. Functional analysis in primary hippocampal mouse neuron cultures indicated that PCBP1 variants impair dendritic arborization, underscoring their deleterious effects. Transcriptomic profiling by RNA sequencing of subject-derived T cells showed a distinctive signature characterized by significantly increased exon skipping. These results highlight the contribution of PCBP1 in neurogenesis and neuritogenesis, which is impacted by loss-of-function variants expressed in neuronal cells, thereby supporting the link between splicing defects and neurodevelopmental disorders. Collectively, our findings demonstrate the prominent role of PCBP1 in neurodevelopment, reaffirming the importance of splicing regulation in mammalian neurodevelopment.

Journal Article

Impact of laboratory-driven proactive reanalysis: Reclassification to positive in 5% of initially negative or uncertain exome sequencing cases.

PURPOSE: Reanalysis of exome sequencing (ES) data increases diagnostic utility; however, there is no consensus on when and under what circumstances reanalysis should occur. Requesting and performing ES reanalysis burdens both clinical and laboratory workflows. Maximizing the potential for reclassification is essential. Here, we describe the impact of a laboratory-driven proactive reanalysis process that triggers reanalysis when new evidence is identified. METHODS: We reviewed reanalysis outcomes of an ES cohort. Reanalysis events were categorized based on initiating factors (laboratory-driven proactive, family studies, and clinician-initiated). Laboratory-driven proactive reclassifications are prompted by systematic review of new scientific data. Outcomes were evaluated by initiating factors, reclassification types, evidence used, and time since original report. RESULTS: Overall, 23% of cases underwent at least 1 reanalysis, with 35% of reanalyses resulting in reclassification. There was a 4% increase in diagnostic yield, including 5% of initially unsolved ES receiving diagnostic reports. Diagnostic reclassifications rates were significantly higher for laboratory-driven proactive reanalyses (54%; P < .0001) than family studies (18%) and clinician-initiated reanalyses (4%). New gene-disease relationships were the most efficacious evidence source. Laboratory-driven proactive reclassifications occurred steadily over time. CONCLUSION: Laboratory-driven proactive reanalysis effectively provides more diagnostic reclassifications compared with clinician-initiated reanalysis. Laboratories should curate and integrate emerging evidence into ES reanalysis.

Humans