Skip to content

Update normal allele range#309

Draft
strchive-bot wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
FRAXE_AFF2-2
Draft

Update normal allele range#309
strchive-bot wants to merge 2 commits intomainfrom
FRAXE_AFF2-2

Conversation

@strchive-bot
Copy link
Contributor

Name
Daniel Nilsson
Username
@dnil
Email
daniel.nilsson@ki.se

Description
We are seeing many normal individuals with far larger sizes than expected. The issue appears to be that the current locus definition includes flanking sequence (corresponding to the hg38 masked region) that has GCC trinucleotides. These are then counted towards pathogenic. If there are no other concerns here, adjusting the limits to the primary repeat should solve the issue. For reference, see e.g. Silva et al 2021, specifically figure S1, where some of the spurious surrounding GCCs are evident. Note that the common allele (15 copies) corresponds to the reference genome allele for hg19 and hg38, and that the size of the pathologic repeat should be 45 nt, whereas T2T CHM13 ts1 has 16 copies.

@netlify
Copy link

netlify bot commented Dec 9, 2025

Deploy Preview for strchive ready!

Name Link
🔨 Latest commit ade4011
🔍 Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/projects/strchive/deploys/6937de654a217300082fe88f
😎 Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-309--strchive.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration.

@dnil dnil mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2025
"DisplayRU": "GCC",
"Disease": "FRAXE",
"NormalMax": 39,
"NormalMax": 69,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

And this appears to have transferred from the previous PR. Kind bot, but not as intended.

Suggested change
"NormalMax": 69,
"NormalMax": 39,

"DisplayRU": "GCC",
"Disease": "FRAXE",
"NormalMax": 39,
"NormalMax": 69,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
"NormalMax": 69,
"NormalMax": 39,

"benign_min": 4,
"benign_max": 39,
"intermediate_min": 40,
"benign_max": 69,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
"benign_max": 69,
"benign_max": 39,

"benign_max": 39,
"intermediate_min": 40,
"benign_max": 69,
"intermediate_min": 70,
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
"intermediate_min": 70,
"intermediate_min": 40,

@Macayla-weiner Macayla-weiner self-assigned this Jan 28, 2026
@Macayla-weiner
Copy link
Contributor

Sorry this took a while to get addressed! Where we're at right now: evaluating these new coordinates, making sure we have the best candidate possible. But overall, we do agree evidence points to a smaller range being more accurate (evaluating chrX:148500638-148500684 at the moment). Once we've decided on what to do with that, we'll be able to better evaluate the pathogenic range. I am looking for published research to back these range changes as well; @dnil if you have something that I didn't find please feel free to post it here. Following is what I have found/you have shared: Silvia et al. 2021, Murray et al. 1996, and Clark et al. 2020.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants