Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21439053›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genomics2011

Comparison of genome-wide array genomic hybridization platforms for the detection of copy number variants in idiopathic mental retardation.

Tracy Tucker, Alexandre Montpetit, David Chai, Susanna Chan, Sébastien Chénier, Bradley P Coe, Allen Delaney, Patrice Eydoux, Wan L Lam, Sylvie Langlois and 7 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genomics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Germline copy number variations associated with breast cancer susceptibility in a Japanese population.Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine · 2013
    Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

17 authors.

Tracy TuckerDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. tbtucker@interchange.ubc.ca
Alexandre Montpetit
David Chai
Susanna Chan
Sébastien Chénier
Bradley P Coe
Allen Delaney
Patrice Eydoux
Wan L Lam
Sylvie Langlois
Emmanuelle Lemyre
Marco Marra
Hong Qian
Guy A Rouleau
David Vincent
Jacques L Michaud
Jan M Friedman

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical laboratories are adopting array genomic hybridization as a standard clinical test. A number of whole genome array genomic hybridization platforms are available, but little is known about their comparative performance in a clinical context.

methodsWe studied 30 children with idiopathic MR and both unaffected parents of each child using Affymetrix 500 K GeneChip SNP arrays, Agilent Human Genome 244 K oligonucleotide arrays and NimbleGen 385 K Whole-Genome oligonucleotide arrays. We also determined whether CNVs called on these platforms were detected by Illumina Hap550 beadchips or SMRT 32 K BAC whole genome tiling arrays and tested 15 of the 30 trios on Affymetrix 6.0 SNP arrays.

resultsThe Affymetrix 500 K, Agilent and NimbleGen platforms identified 3061 autosomal and 117 X chromosomal CNVs in the 30 trios. 147 of these CNVs appeared to be de novo, but only 34 (22%) were found on more than one platform. Performing genotype-phenotype correlations, we identified 7 most likely pathogenic and 2 possibly pathogenic CNVs for MR. All 9 of these putatively pathogenic CNVs were detected by the Affymetrix 500 K, Agilent, NimbleGen and the Illumina arrays, and 5 were found by the SMRT BAC array. Both putatively pathogenic CNVs identified in the 15 trios tested with the Affymetrix 6.0 were identified by this platform.

conclusionsOur findings demonstrate that different results are obtained with different platforms and illustrate the trade-off that exists between sensitivity and specificity. The large number of apparently false positive CNV calls on each of the platforms supports the need for validating clinically important findings with a different technology.

Indexed as

ChildChromosomes, Human, XComparative Genomic HybridizationGene DosageGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeHumansIntellectual DisabilityOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideReagent Kits, DiagnosticReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID21439053
PMCPMC3076225

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.