Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21089066›Full record

ArticleHuman mutation2011

Assessment of copy number variation using the Illumina Infinium 1M SNP-array: a comparison of methodological approaches in the Spanish Bladder Cancer/EPICURO study.

Gaëlle Marenne, Benjamín Rodríguez-Santiago, Montserrat García Closas, Luis Pérez-Jurado, Nathaniel Rothman, Daniel Rico, Guillermo Pita, David G Pisano, Manolis Kogevinas, Debra T Silverman and 5 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Human mutation, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Copy Number Variation Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Increasing the resolution and precision of psychiatric genome-wide association studies by re-imputing summary statistics using a large, diverse reference panel.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

15 authors.

Gaëlle MarenneCentro Nacional de Investigaciones Oncológicas (CNIO) Madrid, Spain.
Benjamín Rodríguez-Santiago
Montserrat García Closas
Luis Pérez-Jurado
Nathaniel Rothman
Daniel Rico
Guillermo Pita
David G Pisano
Manolis Kogevinas
Debra T Silverman
Alfonso Valencia
Francisco X Real
Stephen J Chanock
Emmanuelle Génin
Núria Malats

Funding

Laboratory of Translational GenomicsZIACP010201 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI PROKUNINA-OLSSON, LIUDMILA · 2010 to 2025
$91.2M
Molecular Epidemiology Studies of Occupational and Environmental ExposuresZIACP010121 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI ROTHMAN, NATHANIEL · 2009 to 2025
$23.5M
STUDIES OF OCCUPATIONAL CANCER--MOLECULAR EPIDEMIOLOGYZ01CP010121 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI ROTHMAN, NATHANIEL · 1997 to 2008
$4.4M
Intramural NIH HHS Z01 CP010121
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-array technologies allow to investigate copy number variants (CNVs) in genome-wide scans and specific calling algorithms have been developed to determine CNV location and copy number. We report the results of a reliability analysis comparing data from 96 pairs of samples processed with CNVpartition, PennCNV, and QuantiSNP for Infinium Illumina Human 1Million probe chip data. We also performed a validity assessment with multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) as a reference standard. The number of CNVs per individual varied according to the calling algorithm. Higher numbers of CNVs were detected in saliva than in blood DNA samples regardless of the algorithm used. All algorithms presented low agreement with mean Kappa Index (KI) <66. PennCNV was the most reliable algorithm (KI(w=) 98.96) when assessing the number of copies. The agreement observed in detecting CNV was higher in blood than in saliva samples. When comparing to MLPA, all algorithms identified poorly known copy aberrations (sensitivity = 0.19-0.28). In contrast, specificity was very high (0.97-0.99). Once a CNV was detected, the number of copies was truly assessed (sensitivity >0.62). Our results indicate that the current calling algorithms should be improved for high performance CNV analysis in genome-wide scans. Further refinement is required to assess CNVs as risk factors in complex diseases.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsAlgorithmsGenome, HumanHumansOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUrinary Bladder Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID21089066
PMCPMC3230937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.