ReviewJournal of inherited metabolic disease2001
Garrod's foresight; our hindsight.
Review in Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating precision medicine approaches for gene therapy in patient-specific cellular models of Bietti crystalline dystrophy.JCI insight · 2024Article
- Legacies of Garrod's brilliance. One hundred years--and counting.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2008Review
- Chemical individuality: concept and outlook.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2008Review
- Garrod's Croonian Lectures (1908) and the charter 'Inborn Errors of Metabolism': albinism, alkaptonuria, cystinuria, and pentosuria at age 100 in 2008.Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2008Review
- After the genome--the phenome?Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2004Review
- Does hereditary metabolic disease modulate senescence and ageing?Journal of inherited metabolic disease · 2002Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Archibald Edward Garrod introduced a paradigm, new for its day, in medicine: Biochemistry is dynamic and different from the static nature of organic chemistry. It led him to think about metabolic pathways and to recognize that variation in Mendelian heredity could explain an 'inborn error of metabolism'. At the time, Garrod had no idea about the nature of a gene. Genes are now well understood, genomes are being described for one organism after another (including H. sapiens) and it is understood that genomes 'speak biochemistry (not phenotype)'. Accordingly, in the era of genomics, biochemistry and physiology become the bases of functional genomics and it is possible to appreciate why 'nothing in biology makes sense without evolution' (and nothing in medicine will make sense without biology). Mendelian, biochemical and molecular genetics together have revealed what lies behind the four canonical inborn errors described by Garrod (albinism, alkaptonuria, cystinuria and pentosuria). Both older and newer ideas in genetics, new tools for applying them, and renewed respect for the clinician-scientist will enhance our understanding of the human biological variation that accounts for variant states of health and overt disease; an 'unsimple' phenotype (phenylketonuria) is used to illustrate in some detail. What can be known and what ought to be done with knowledge about human genetics to benefit individuals, families and communities (society) is both opportunity and challenge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
11405353What 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.