BiologybioRxiv
Ranked by formulaVerdict: NotableDog-human gene network colocalization links synaptic signalling and ubiquitination to compulsive disorders
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is highly polygenic, and the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS), with 53,660 cases and 2,044,417 controls, identified only 30 loci, a small fraction of loci estimated to…
Key numbers
- 40-fold more phenotypic variance than
- 80-fold fewer individuals
Caveats
- Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.
VerdictWorth a reader's time today.
Abstract
Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is highly polygenic, and the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS), with 53,660 cases and 2,044,417 controls, identified only 30 loci, a small fraction of loci estimated to explain its heritability - too few to resolve biological pathways. Pet dogs develop a compulsive disorder (dogCD) similar to OCD. In a GWAS of dogCD with 2,584 dogs from the community science project Darwin's Ark, each dog locus explains at least 40-fold more phenotypic variance than each human OCD locus, giving power equivalent to the human GWAS with 80-fold fewer individuals. Combining the two GWAS identifies a 165-gene network undetectable in humans at current sample sizes. This network is enriched for genes expressed in neurons, particularly in the amygdala and cortex, and comprises four biological processes: excitatory-inhibitory synaptic transmission, axon guidance and neuron recognition, protein ubiquitination, and adenylyl cyclase-activating G-protein-coupled receptor signaling. Like most complex human traits, dogCD risk is likely driven by regulatory variation: fine-mapped dogCD SNPs are non-coding, and dogCD loci are enriched in candidate cis-regulatory elements (cCREs) in a new dog epigenomic atlas spanning eight brain regions. The cross-species network implicates an inherited risk architecture largely outside current OCD pharmacotherapy, and establishes pet dogs as a model for gene network discovery, particularly for conditions underpowered in human studies.
The editor's rubric
| Dimension | Level | Weight | What that level means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leverage | ███░░ 3 | 24% | A method or resource many groups across the field will adopt within a year. |
| Magnitude | ███░░ 3 | 16% | Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem. |
| Evidence | ███░░ 3 | 20% | Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data. |
| Novelty | ██░░░ 2 | 20% | A new combination of known ideas. |
| Trajectory | ███░░ 3 | 10% | A clear path to scale. |
| Stakes | ██░░░ 2 | 10% | Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers). |
Editor’s rationale
Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: breadth (many tasks); gains (x-fold); novelty (discovery); scale (low cost).
How the score was computed
- Merit
- 5.4 / 10
- Adjusted merit
- 4.5 / 10
- Attention
- 0%
- Freshness
- 88%