ArticleAmerican journal of medical genetics. Part A2012
Supernumerary marker chromosomes derived from chromosome 6: cytogenetic, molecular cytogenetic, and array CGH characterization.
Article in American journal of medical genetics. Part A, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prenatal diagnosis and genetic analysis of small supernumerary marker chromosomes in the eastern chinese han population: A retrospective study of 36 cases.Chromosome research : an international journal on the molecular, supramolecular and evolutionary aspects of chromosome biology · 2024Article
- Combined use of karyotyping and copy number variation sequencing technology in prenatal diagnosis.PeerJ · 2022Article
- Aneurysmal bone cysts and pathologic fracture associated with supernumerary ring chromosome 6 in two unrelated patients.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2017Article
- 6q16.3q23.3 duplication associated with Prader-Willi-like syndrome.Molecular cytogenetics · 2015Article
- Clinical and genetic characterization of basal cell carcinoma and breast cancer in a single patient.SpringerPlus · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Supernumerary marker chromosomes (SMC) are relatively common in prenatal diagnosis. As the clinical outcomes vary greatly, a better understanding of the karyotype-phenotype correlation for different SMCs will be important for genetic counseling. We present two cases of prenatally detected de novo, small SMCs. The markers were present in 80% of amniocyte colonies in Case 1 and 38% of the colonies in Case 2. The SMCs were determined to be derived from chromosome 6 during postnatal confirmation studies. Although the sizes and the chromosomal origin of the SMCs in these two cases appeared to be similar, the clinical outcomes varied. The clinical manifestations observed in Case 1 included small for gestational age, feeding difficulty at birth, hydronephrosis, deviated septum and dysmorphic features, while the phenotype is apparently normal in Case 2. Array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) was performed and showed increase in dosage for approximately 26 Mb of genetic material from the proximal short and long arms of chromosome 6 in Case 1. Results of array CGH were uninformative in Case 2, either due to mosaicism or lack of detectable euchromatin. The difference in the clinical presentation in these two patients may have resulted from the difference in the actual gene contents of the marker chromosomes and/or the differential distribution of the mosaicism.
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.