1 Abstract
Objective Microdeletions are associated with different forms of epilepsy but show incomplete penetrance, which is not well understood. We aimed to assess whether unmasked variants or double CNVs could explain incomplete penetrance.
Methods We analyzed copy number variants (CNVs) in 603 patients with four different subgroups of epilepsy and 945 controls. CNVs were called from genotypes and validated on whole genome (WGS) or exome sequences (WES). CNV burden difference between patients and controls was obtained by fitting a logistic regression. CNV burden was assessed for small and large (> 1Mb) deletions and duplications and for deletions overlapping different genes set.
Results Large deletions were enriched in genetic generalized epilepsies (GGE) compared to controls. We also found an enrichment of deletions in epilepsy genes and hotspots for GGE. We did not find truncating or functional variants that could have been unmasked by the deletions. We observed a double CNV hit in two patients. One patient also carried a de novo deletion in the 22q11.2 hotspot.
Interpretation We could corroborate previous findings of an enrichment of large microdeletions and deletions in epilepsy genes in GGE. We could also replicate that microdeletions show incomplete penetrance. However, we could not validate the hypothesis of unmasked variants nor the hypothesis of double CNVs to explain the incomplete penetrance. We found a de novo hit on 22q11.2 that could be of interest. We also observed GGE families carrying a deletion on 15q13.3 hotspot that could be investigated in the Quebec founder population.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by funding from Genome Quebec / Genome Canada as well as from the CIHR (#420021). It was also made possible by Compute Canada resources allocation for the access to storage and computing resources.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the CHUM research Center (CRCHUM) ethics committee and by the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi ethics board. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients (or their legal guardians for patients under 18) and adult controls.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
