ArticleHuman genetics2009
Breakpoint mapping and haplotype analysis of three reciprocal translocations identify a novel recurrent translocation in two unrelated families: t(4;11)(p16.2;p15.4).
Article in Human genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Observation and prediction of recurrent human translocations mediated by NAHR between nonhomologous chromosomes.Genome research · 2011Article
- The constitutional t(11;22): implications for a novel mechanism responsible for gross chromosomal rearrangements.Clinical genetics · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The majority of constitutional reciprocal translocations appear to be unique rearrangements arising from independent events. However, a small number of translocations are recurrent, most significantly the t(11;22)(q23;q11). Among large series of translocations there may be multiple independently ascertained cases with the same cytogenetic breakpoints. Some of these could represent additional recurrent rearrangements, alternatively they could be identical by descent (IBD) or have subtly different breakpoints when examined under higher resolution. We have used molecular breakpoint mapping and haplotyping to determine the origin of three pairs of reciprocal constitutional translocations, each with the same cytogenetic breakpoints. FISH mapping showed one pair to have different breakpoints and thus to be distinct rearrangements. Another pair of translocations were IBD with identical breakpoint intervals and highly conserved haplotypes on the derived chromosomes. The third pair, t(4;11)(p16.2;p15.4), had the same breakpoint intervals by aCGH and fosmid mapping but had very different haplotypes, therefore they represent a novel recurrent translocation. Unlike the t(11;22)(q23;q11), the formation of the t(4;11)(p16.2;p15.4) may have involved segmental duplications and sequence homology at the breakpoints. Additional examples of recurrent translocations could be identified if the resources were available to study more translocations using the approaches described here. However, like the t(4;11)(p16.2;p15.4), such translocations are likely to be rare with the t(11;22) remaining the only common recurrent constitutional reciprocal translocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19104840What 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.