Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21252201›Full record

ArticleGenome research2011

Large duplications at reciprocal translocation breakpoints that might be the counterpart of large deletions and could arise from stalled replication bubbles.

Karen D Howarth, Jessica C M Pole, Juliet C Beavis, Elizabeth M Batty, Scott Newman, Graham R Bignell, Paul A W Edwards

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Detection of a complex chromosomal rearrangement in a novel mouse mutant by optical genome mapping.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. PREVENTING THE CHROMOSOMAL TRANSLOCATIONS THAT CAUSE CANCER.Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association · 2016
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mechanisms of gene duplication and amplification.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2015
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Chromothripsis: chromosomes in crisis.Developmental cell · 2012
    Review
  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

7 authors.

Karen D HowarthHutchison/MRC Research Centre and Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. kdh29@cam.ac.uk
Jessica C M Pole
Juliet C Beavis
Elizabeth M Batty
Scott Newman
Graham R Bignell
Paul A W Edwards

Funding

Breast Cancer Now 2008NOVPR21Cancer Research UKMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reciprocal chromosome translocations are often not exactly reciprocal. Most familiar are deletions at the breakpoints, up to megabases in extent. We describe here the opposite phenomenon-duplication of tens or hundreds of kilobases at the breakpoint junction, so that the same sequence is present on both products of a translocation. When the products of the translocation are mapped on the genome, they overlap. We report several of these "overlapping-breakpoint" duplications in breast cancer cell lines HCC1187, HCC1806, and DU4475. These lines also had deletions and essentially balanced translocations. In HCC1187 and HCC1806, we identified five cases of duplication ranging between 46 kb and 200 kb, with the partner chromosome showing deletions between 29 bp and 31 Mb. DU4475 had a duplication of at least 200 kb. Breakpoints were mapped using array painting, i.e., hybridization of chromosomes isolated by flow cytometry to custom oligonucleotide microarrays. Duplications were verified by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), PCR on isolated chromosomes, and cloning of breakpoints. We propose that these duplications are the counterpart of deletions and that they are produced at a replication bubble, comprising two replication forks with the duplicated sequence in between. Both copies of the duplicated sequence would go to one daughter cell, on different products of the translocation, while the other daughter cell would show deletion. These duplications may have been overlooked because they may be missed by FISH and array-CGH and may be interpreted as insertions by paired-end sequencing. Such duplications may therefore be quite frequent.

Indexed as

Chromosome BreakageGene DeletionTranslocation, GeneticBase SequenceCell Line, TumorChromosomes, HumanDNA ReplicationHumansModels, GeneticMolecular Sequence DataSequence Alignment

Identifiers

PMID21252201
PMCPMC3065700

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.