ReviewHuman molecular genetics2009
Lessons learnt from large-scale exon re-sequencing of the X chromosome.
Review in Human molecular genetics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in understanding - genetic basis of intellectual disability.F1000Research · 2016Review
- Medical genomics: The intricate path from genetic variant identification to clinical interpretation.Applied & translational genomics · 2014Review
- DECIPHER: web-based, community resource for clinical interpretation of rare variants in developmental disorders.Human molecular genetics · 2012Review
- 'Sifting the significance from the data' - the impact of high-throughput genomic technologies on human genetics and health care.Human genomics · 2012Article
- Targeted sequencing of the human X chromosome exome.Genomics · 2011Article
- Identity-by-descent filtering of exome sequence data for disease-gene identification in autosomal recessive disorders.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2011Article
- Subtle functional defects in the Arf-specific guanine nucleotide exchange factor IQSEC2 cause non-syndromic X-linked intellectual disability.Small GTPases · 2010Article
- Mutations in centrosomal protein CEP152 in primary microcephaly families linked to MCPH4.American journal of human genetics · 2010Article
- Design of association studies with pooled or un-pooled next-generation sequencing data.Genetic epidemiology · 2010Article
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
Abstract
A candidate gene approach to identifying novel causes of disease is concept-limiting and in the new era of high throughput sequencing there is now no need to restrict the experiment to a few interesting genes. We have recently completed a large-scale exon re-sequencing project using Sanger sequencing technology to analyse approximately 1 Mb of coding sequence of the X chromosome in probands from >200 families with various forms of intellectual disability. We review the lessons learnt from this experience. Comparing large data sets will certainly reveal pathogenic mutations in genes that were not possible to identify previously. However, the task of distinguishing pathogenic mutations from rare sequence variants is not easy and is the most substantial challenge to the next decade. High-throughput technology has the attraction of being cheap, fast and comprehensive but for projects that require detailed coverage of a genomic region at an exhaustive level they may require a combination of large-scale with a small-scale follow-up of difficult regions to sequence. The number of rare truncating variants present in coding regions of the X chromosome that are not pathogenic was 1%. The importance of the quality of the starting material both clinically and molecularly and the number of sequence variants both rare and common that any one individual has across their coding sequence is discussed.
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.