ArticleJournal of medical genetics2001
A comparison of methods for gene dosage analysis in HMSN type 1.
Article in Journal of medical genetics, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beware next-generation sequencing gene panels as the first-line genetic test in Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease.Journal of neurology, neurosurgery, and psychiatry · 2023Article
- Mutation spectrum of RB1 mutations in retinoblastoma cases from Singapore with implications for genetic management and counselling.PloS one · 2017Article
- Novel deletion of the E3A ubiquitin protein ligase gene detected by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in a patient with Angelman syndrome.Experimental & molecular medicine · 2010Article
- SPANX-B and SPANX-C (Xq27 region) gene dosage analysis in Down's syndrome subjects with undescended testes.Journal of genetics · 2009Article
- Molecular diagnostics of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease and related peripheral neuropathies.Neuromolecular medicine · 2006Review
- A rapid and reliable detection system for the analysis of PMP22 gene dosage by MP/DHPLC assay.Journal of human genetics · 2006Article
- Mapping genomic deletions down to the base: a quantitative copy number scanning approach used to characterise and clone the breakpoints of a recurrent 7p14.2p15.3 deletion.Human genetics · 2004Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A number of different approaches are used in diagnostic laboratories to detect the 1.5 Mb duplication at 17p11.2 seen in approximately 70% of patients with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy type 1 (HMSN1). Here we compare the methods used in UK diagnostic laboratories to detect the duplication. Samples referred to participating centres for HMSN testing were collected, randomised, and distributed for testing. One hundred samples were examined using five different methods; each method was tested by two independent laboratories. Identical results were obtained from all laboratories for 44 samples. The remaining samples were classified as duplication positive or duplication negative on the basis of the same result by two or more methods. A total of 95 samples were classified by more than one method, two were withdrawn from the study as the same result was not obtained by two methods, and three are thought to have a duplication smaller than 1.5 Mb. Seven of 49 duplications were not detected by methods used to detect the common junction fragment and the use of microsatellites failed to yield a result in four of 95 samples. Sequence tagged site (STS) dosage analysis was found to be the most sensitive of the methods tested, although this method was found to be the most likely to require repeat analysis. Eight samples gave discordant results between the two laboratories testing by the same method. Upon retesting, reasons for the initial incorrect result included processing and typographical errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.