ArticleBMC medical genetics2013
MS-MLPA analysis for FMR1 gene: evaluation in a routine diagnostic setting.
Article in BMC medical genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Narrative Review: Update on the Molecular Diagnosis of Fragile X Syndrome.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Article
- Assessment of FMR1 triplet repeats in patients affected with mental retardation, fragile X syndrome and primary ovarian insufficiency.Journal of genetics · 2020Article
- FXS-Like Phenotype in Two Unrelated Patients Carrying a Methylated Premutation of theFrontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Recent advances in assays for the fragile X-related disorders.Human genetics · 2017Review
- Molecular Correlates and Recent Advancements in the Diagnosis and Screening of FMR1-Related Disorders.Genes · 2016Review
- DNA methylation biomarkers: cancer and beyond.Genes · 2014Review
- [Fragile X syndrome and FMR1-dependent diseases - diagnostic scheme based on own experience .]Developmental period medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFragile X Syndrome (FXS), the most common cause of familiar mental retardation, is associated in over 99% of cases to an expansion over 200 repeats of a CGG sequence in the 5' UTR of the FMR1 gene (Xq27.3), leading to the hypermethylation of the promoter. Molecular diagnosis of FXS have been so far based on the use of the Southern Blot (SB) analysis, a low throughput and time consuming technique. In order to update the diagnostic approach for FXS, we evaluated the usefulness of the Methylation-Specific Multiplex-Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification assay (MS-MLPA).
methodsThe study was carried out by retrospectively analysing 44 male patients, 10 Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS) samples and 10 females previously analyzed by SB. In addition, a prospective study on 98 male subjects, 20 females and 1 CVS sample was carried out for assessing the feasibility and the impact of MS-MLPA in a routine lab work.
resultResults provided by both the retrospective and the prospective parts of this study strongly demonstrate the robustness and reproducibility of the MS-MLPA assay, able to correctly detect the methylation status in all normal and full mutation male samples analyzed, including CVS male samples. On the other hand, MS-MLPA analysis on females samples produced unreliable results.
conclusionBased on our results, we suggest the necessity of a separate workflow for male and female patients with suspected FXS in the routine diagnostic setting. MS-MLPA, in combination with CGG repeat sizing using a single-tube primed FMR1 PCR, represents a reliable diagnostic protocol in the molecular diagnosis of FXS male patients.
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.