Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21364933›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Determination of beta-defensin genomic copy number in different populations: a comparison of three methods.

Peder Fode, Cathrine Jespersgaard, Robert J Hardwick, Helen Bogle, Michael Theisen, Daniel Dodoo, Martin Lenicek, Libor Vitek, Ana Vieira, Joao Freitas and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Copy Number Variation in Asthma: An Integrative Review.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025
    Review
  2. Two Single Nucleotide Deletions in theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Peder FodeDepartment for Microbiological Surveillance and Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Cathrine Jespersgaard
Robert J Hardwick
Helen Bogle
Michael Theisen
Daniel Dodoo
Martin Lenicek
Libor Vitek
Ana Vieira
Joao Freitas
Paal Skytt Andersen
Edward J Hollox
Statens Serum Institut · DKUniversity of Leicester · GBCharles University · CZHospital Garcia de Orta · PTUniversity of Ghana · GH

Funding

Medical Research Council G0801123Medical Research Council GO801123Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 087663
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere have been conflicting reports in the literature on association of gene copy number with disease, including CCL3L1 and HIV susceptibility, and β-defensins and Crohn's disease. Quantification of precise gene copy numbers is important in order to define any association of gene copy number with disease. At present, real-time quantitative PCR (QPCR) is the most commonly used method to determine gene copy number, however the Paralogue Ratio Test (PRT) is being used in more and more laboratories.

findingsIn this study we compare a Pyrosequencing-based Paralogue Ratio Test (PPRT) for determining beta-defensin gene copy number with two currently used methods for gene copy number determination, QPCR and triplex PRT by typing five different cohorts (UK, Danish, Portuguese, Ghanaian and Czech) of DNA from a total of 576 healthy individuals. We found a systematic measurement bias between DNA cohorts revealed by QPCR, but not by the PRT-based methods. Using PRT, copy number ranged from 2 to 9 copies, with a modal copy number of 4 in all populations.

conclusionsQPCR is very sensitive to quality of the template DNA, generating systematic biases that could produce false-positive or negative disease associations. Both triplex PRT and PPRT do not show this systematic bias, and type copy number within the correct range, although triplex PRT appears to be a more precise and accurate method to type beta-defensin copy number.

Indexed as

Gene DosageBase Sequencebeta-DefensinsChromosome MappingCohort StudiesCzech RepublicDenmarkGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetics, PopulationGenome, HumanGhanaHumansMolecular Sequence DataPopulationPortugalUnited Kingdombeta-Defensins

Identifiers

PMID21364933
PMCPMC3043064
OpenAlexW2040186843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.