SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

A Population-Wide Exploration of the THAP11 CAG Repeat Size and Structure in the 100,000 Genomes Project and UK Biobank.

Mov Disord · 2024-12-09

DOI: 10.1002/mds.30073PMID: 39651830

Open accessbrief-report; Journal Article; Research Support, N.I.H., ExtramuralOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundA CAG repeat expansion in THAP11 was recently found to be associated with spinocerebellar ataxia in two Chinese families. Expanded repeats ranged from 45 to 100 units, with CAA sequence interruptions in the 5' region and an uninterrupted CAG tract in the 3' tail.ObjectiveHere, we assess the population distribution of the THAP11 repeat, and its contribution to neurological diseases.MethodsWe interrogated data from 54,788 individuals from Genomics England, 10,686 patients from the UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology in-house database (UCL IoN), and 424,340 individuals from the UK Biobank.ResultsWe identified expanded repeats in four individuals with learning difficulties without ataxia and in three individuals in UK Biobank, one with hereditary ataxia, one with hereditary neuropathy, and one with neurodegenerative disease. We showed a linear relationship between the number of CAA interruptions and overall repeat length.ConclusionsThese results indicate that THAP11 expansions are rare in the British population and that sequence structures predisposed to expansions may be more common in non-British ancestries. © 2024 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.