No abstract

ObjectiveDetermining the genetic basis of speech disorders provides insight into the neurobiology of human communication. Despite intensive investigation over the past 2 decades, the etiology of most speech disorders in children remains unexplained. To test the hypothesis that speech disorders have a genetic etiology, we performed genetic analysis of children with severe speech disorder, specifically childhood apraxia of speech (CAS).MethodsPrecise phenotyping together with research genome or exome analysis were performed on children referred with a primary diagnosis of CAS. Gene coexpression and gene set enrichment analyses were conducted on high-confidence gene candidates.ResultsThirty-four probands ascertained for CAS were studied. In 11/34 (32%) probands, we identified highly plausible pathogenic single nucleotide (n = 10; CDK13, EBF3, GNAO1, GNB1, DDX3X, MEIS2, POGZ, SETBP1, UPF2, ZNF142) or copy number (n = 1; 5q14.3q21.1 locus) variants in novel genes or loci for CAS. Testing of parental DNA was available for 9 probands and confirmed that the variants had arisen de novo. Eight genes encode proteins critical for regulation of gene transcription, and analyses of transcriptomic data found CAS-implicated genes were highly coexpressed in the developing human brain.ConclusionWe identify the likely genetic etiology in 11 patients with CAS and implicate 9 genes for the first time. We find that CAS is often a sporadic monogenic disorder, and highly genetically heterogeneous. Highly penetrant variants implicate shared pathways in broad transcriptional regulation, highlighting the key role of transcriptional regulation in normal speech development. CAS is a distinctive, socially debilitating clinical disorder, and understanding its molecular basis is the first step towards identifying precision medicine approaches.

Background:The immunohistochemical (IHC) 4+C score is a cost-effective prognostic tool that uses clinicopathologic factors and four standard IHC assays: oestrogen receptor (ER), PR, HER2 and Ki67. We assessed its utility in personalising breast cancer treatment in a clinical practice setting, through comparison with Adjuvant! Online (AoL) and the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI).Methods:We prospectively gathered clinicopathologic data for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, N0-3 resected early breast cancer treated consecutively at our institution. We retrospectively calculated and compared prognostic scores. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reclassified from AoL-defined intermediate-risk by application of the IHC4+C score.Results:The median age of the 101 patients included in the analysis was 63. In all, 15 of the 26 patients classified as intermediate-risk by AoL were reallocated to a low-risk group by application of the IHC4+C score and no patient was reclassified as high-risk group. Of the 59 patients classified as intermediate-risk group by the NPI, 24 were reallocated to a low-risk group and 13 to a high-risk group.Conclusion:IHC4+C reclassifies more than half of the patients stratified as being in intermediate-risk group by the AoL and NPI. The use of IHC4+C may substantially improve decision-making on adjuvant chemotherapy.

No abstract