ArticleNucleic acids research2013
Expanding probe repertoire and improving reproducibility in human genomic hybridization.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differentially accessible, single copy sequences form contiguous domains along metaphase chromosomes that are conserved among multiple tissues.Molecular cytogenetics · 2021Article
- Single Copy Oligonucleotide Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization Probe Design Platforms: Development, Application and Evaluation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- A unified analytic framework for prioritization of non-coding variants of uncertain significance in heritable breast and ovarian cancer.BMC medical genomics · 2016Article
- Reversing chromatin accessibility differences that distinguish homologous mitotic metaphase chromosomes.Molecular cytogenetics · 2015Article
- Absence/presence calling in microarray-based CGH experiments with non-model organisms.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- Localized, non-random differences in chromatin accessibility between homologous metaphase chromosomes.Molecular cytogenetics · 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
Diagnostic DNA hybridization relies on probes composed of single copy (sc) genomic sequences. Sc sequences in probe design ensure high specificity and avoid cross-hybridization to other regions of the genome, which could lead to ambiguous results that are difficult to interpret. We examine how the distribution and composition of repetitive sequences in the genome affects sc probe performance. A divide and conquer algorithm was implemented to design sc probes. With this approach, sc probes can include divergent repetitive elements, which hybridize to unique genomic targets under higher stringency experimental conditions. Genome-wide custom probe sets were created for fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and microarray genomic hybridization. The scFISH probes were developed for detection of copy number changes within small tumour suppressor genes and oncogenes. The microarrays demonstrated increased reproducibility by eliminating cross-hybridization to repetitive sequences adjacent to probe targets. The genome-wide microarrays exhibited lower median coefficients of variation (17.8%) for two HapMap family trios. The coefficients of variations of commercial probes within 300 nt of a repetitive element were 48.3% higher than the nearest custom probe. Furthermore, the custom microarray called a chromosome 15q11.2q13 deletion more consistently. This method for sc probe design increases probe coverage for FISH and lowers variability in genomic microarrays.
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.