Background: Intellectual disability is a very complex condition where more than 600 genes have been reported. Due to this extraordinary heterogeneity, a large proportion of patients remain without a specific diagnosis and genetic counselling. The need for new methodological strategies in order to detect a greater number of mutations in multiple genes is therefore crucial. Methods: In this work, we screened a large panel of 1256 genes (646 pathogenic, 610 candidate) by next-generation sequencing to determine the molecular aetiology of syndromic intellectual disability. A total of 92 patients, negative for previous genetic analyses, were studied together with their parents. Clinically relevant variants were validated by conventional sequencing. Results: A definitive diagnosis was achieved in 29 families by testing the 646 known pathogenic genes. Mutations were found in 25 different genes, where only the genes KMT2D, KMT2A and MED13L were found mutated in more than one patient. A preponderance of de novo mutations was noted even among the X linked conditions. Additionally, seven de novo probably pathogenic mutations were found in the candidate genes AGO1, JARID2, SIN3B, FBXO11, MAP3K7, HDAC2 and SMARCC2. Altogether, this means a diagnostic yield of 39% of the cases (95% CI 30% to 49%). Conclusions: The developed panel proved to be efficient and suitable for the genetic diagnosis of syndromic intellectual disability in a clinical setting. Next-generation sequencing has the potential for high-throughput identification of genetic variations, although the challenges of an adequate clinical interpretation of these variants and the knowledge on further unknown genes causing intellectual disability remain to be solved.

Intellectual disability (ID) is a heterogeneous disorder with an unknown molecular etiology in many cases. Previously, X‐linked ID (XLID) studies focused on males because of the hemizygous state of their X chromosome. Carrier females are generally unaffected because of the presence of a second normal allele, or inactivation of the mutant X chromosome in most of their cells (skewing). However, in female ID patients, we hypothesized that the presence of skewing of X‐inactivation would be an indicator for an X chromosomal ID cause. We analyzed the X‐inactivation patterns of 288 females with ID, and found that 22 (7.6%) had extreme skewing (>90%), which is significantly higher than observed in the general population (3.6%; P = 0.029). Whole‐exome sequencing of 19 females with extreme skewing revealed causal variants in six females in the XLID genes DDX3X, NHS, WDR45, MECP2, and SMC1A. Interestingly, variants in genes escaping X‐inactivation presumably cause both XLID and skewing of X‐inactivation in three of these patients. Moreover, variants likely accounting for skewing only were detected in MED12, HDAC8, and TAF9B. All tested candidate causative variants were de novo events. Hence, extreme skewing is a good indicator for the presence of X‐linked variants in female patients.

Background: Alzheimer’s (AD) and Parkinson’s diseases (PD) show deposits of improperly folded modified proteins. Protein expression mechanisms are involved since the early stages. Several studies evaluated epigenomics and proteomics profiles in these patients, with promising results. In general, they focused on early, specific, and minimally invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of AD and PD. Objective: This review aimed at summarizing results to find the most reliable evidence in the field. Results: Among epigenomics studies, there is a focus on microRNAs (miRNAs) as candidate diagnostic biomarkers for AD or PD from blood samples like miR-342-3p, miR-107, miR-106a-5p, miR-106b- 5p, miR-195, and miR-19b. In addition, DNA methylation has been tested in a few works, obtaining significant differences in some genes (NCAPH2/LMF2 COASY, SPINT1, BDNFTREM1, TREM2, NPAS2, PDE4D), which could be useful for evaluating the disease progression as well as potential risk factors. Regarding proteomics, most of the studies were untargeted and used plasma or serum samples. In general, they highlighted the importance of coagulation, inflammation pathways, and oxidative stress. Among targeted studies, some proteins (phosphorylated tau, C reactive protein (CRP), interleukins, necrosis factors, transferrin, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), and neurofilaments) showed different plasma levels in AD and PD patients in comparison with healthy participants. Finally, a few studies have identified specific-AD and PD epigenetic and proteomic biomarkers (ApoE and oxidized DJ-1) in comparison with other similar pathologies. Conclusion: In general, there is a common lack of clinical validation of these potential biomarkers because of which its use in clinical practice is still limited.