ArticleBMC cancer2010
Simplifying the detection of MUTYH mutations by high resolution melting analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) is a disorder caused by bi-allelic germline MUTYH mutation, characterized by multiple colorectal adenomas. In order to identify mutations in MUTYH gene we applied High Resolution Melting (HRM) genotyping. HRM analysis is extensively employed as a scanning method for the detection of heterozygous mutations. Therefore, we applied HRM to show effectiveness in detecting homozygous mutations for these clinically important and frequent patients.
methodsIn this study, we analyzed phenotype and genotype data from 82 patients, with multiple (> or = 10) synchronous (19/82) or metachronous (63/82) adenomas and negative APC study (except one case). Analysis was performed by HRM-PCR and direct sequencing, in order to identify mutations in MUTYH exons 7, 12 and 13, where the most prevalent mutations are located. In monoallelic mutation carriers, we evaluated entire MUTYH gene in search of another possible alteration. HRM-PCR was performed with strict conditions in several rounds: the first one to discriminate the heteroduplex patterns and homoduplex patterns and the next ones, in order to refine and confirm parameters. The genotypes obtained were correlated to phenotypic features (number of adenomas (synchronous or metachronous), colorectal cancer (CRC) and family history).
resultsMUTYH germline mutations were found in 15.8% (13/82) of patients. The hot spots, Y179C (exon 7) and G396D (exon 13), were readily identified and other mutations were also detected. Each mutation had a reproducible melting profile by HRM, both heterozygous mutations and homozygous mutations. In our study of 82 patients, biallelic mutation is associated with being a carrier of >/=10 synchronous polyps (p = 0.05) and there is no association between biallelic mutation and CRC (p = 0.39) nor family history (p = 0.63). G338H non-pathogenic polymorphism (exon 12) was found in 23.1% (19/82) of patients. In all cases there was concordance between HRM (first and subsequent rounds) and sequencing data.
conclusionsHere, we describe a screening method, HRM, for the detection of both heterozygous and homozygous mutations in the gene encoding MUTYH in selected samples of patients with phenotype of MAP. We refine the capabilities of HRM-PCR and apply it to a gene not yet analyzed by this tool. As clinical decisions will increasingly rely on molecular medicine, the power of identifying germline mutations must be continuously evaluated and improved.
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.