Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18622756›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology reports2009

An alternative method for genotyping of the ACE I/D polymorphism.

Kimberly L Glenn, Zhi-Qiang Du, Joey C Eisenmann, Max F Rothschild

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology reports, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. ACE I/D gene polymorphisms and polycystic ovary syndrome manifestations.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Sarcoidosis, vasculitis, and diffuse lung diseases : official journal of WASOG · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kimberly L GlennDepartment of Animal Science and Center for Integrated Animal Genomics, Iowa State University, 2255 Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011, USA. kim@iastate.edu
Zhi-Qiang Du
Joey C Eisenmann
Max F Rothschild

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mistyping of the angiotensin I-converting enzyme insertion/deletion (ACE I/D) has been well documented, and new methods have been suggested here to improve the genotyping efficiency. Buccal cell samples were collected from 157 young Caucasians, and genotyped using previously known and newly developed PCR amplification genotyping techniques, as well as PCR-RFLP tests for three single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs4327, rs4341 and rs4343). Inconsistent genotyping results were found when using only the PCR amplification genotyping techniques across repeated attempts (8% to 45%), however, individual SNP genotyping was highly consistent (100%). Two SNPs (rs4341 and rs4343) were in complete LD and SNP rs4327 was in high LD with the ACE I/D. The ACE I/D was in HW equilibrium in the portion of the population with consistent genotyping results, whereas the three SNPs were not in HW equilibrium. The mistyping of ACE I/D by only PCR amplification can be improved using alternative methods.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, GeneticGenotypeHumansMethodsPeptidyl-Dipeptidase APolymerase Chain ReactionPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNASequence DeletionWhite PeoplePeptidyl-Dipeptidase A

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.