Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23299532›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013

An intronic polymorphic deletion in the PTEN gene: implications for molecular diagnostic testing.

S Sandell, R J L Schuit, D J Bunyan

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Cowden Syndrome and Oral Lesions: A Case Report Using MLPA.The American journal of case reports · 2025
    Article
  2. Gingival Overgrowths RevealingBiomedicines · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Detection of structural variation using target captured next-generation sequencing data for genetic diagnostic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2019
    Article
  6. PTEN Methylation Dependent Sinonasal Mucosal Melanoma.Cancer research and treatment · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

S SandellWessex Regional Genetics Laboratory, Salisbury District Hospital, Salisbury SP2 8BJ, UK.
R J L Schuit
D J Bunyan
Wessex Regional Genetics Laboratory · GBMRC Holland (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA cohort of 629 patients with suspected Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome or Cowden syndrome was tested for mutations in the PTEN gene.

methodsDosage analysis of PTEN was carried out using a PTEN-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) kit, whereas point mutation analysis was performed using direct sequencing.

resultsApproximately 4% of the patients from the testing cohort were heterozygously deleted for the two MLPA probe-binding sites situated in intron 1. The same deletion was subsequently seen in ∼3% of 220 normal controls, and in patients from the testing cohort with a causative mutation elsewhere in the PTEN gene. Sequencing of the variant revealed an 899 bp deletion, the 3' breakpoint of which is only 58 bp from the start of exon 2.

conclusionAlthough all evidence suggests that the 899 bp deletion is a polymorphism with no clinical effect, it removes the binding sites of almost all published PTEN exon 2 forward primers, resulting in allelic loss during PCR.

Indexed as

Sequence DeletionDNA Mutational AnalysisHamartoma Syndrome, MultipleHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPTEN PhosphohydrolaseSequence Analysis, DNAPTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, human

Identifiers

PMID23299532
PMCPMC3566822
OpenAlexW2067317174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.