ArticleBMC genetics2013
Detection limit of intragenic deletions with targeted array comparative genomic hybridization.
Article in BMC genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of copy-number variants in a large cohort of patients with von Willebrand disease reveals a relationship between disrupted regions and disease type.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2023Article
- Intestinal metaplasia of the urinary tract harbors potentially oncogenic genetic variants.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021Article
- Genomic Diagnosis for Pediatric Disorders: Revolution and Evolution.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Review
- The role of genetics in the pathogenesis and diagnosis of type 1 Von Willebrand disease.Current opinion in hematology · 2019Review
- The Genomic Health of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells: Genomic Instability and the Consequences on Nuclear Organization.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Review
- arrEYE: a customized platform for high-resolution copy number analysis of coding and noncoding regions of known and candidate retinal dystrophy genes and retinal noncoding RNAs.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- Improving molecular diagnosis of aniridia and WAGR syndrome using customized targeted array-based CGH.PloS one · 2017Article
- Clinical and laboratory variability in a cohort of patients diagnosed with type 1 VWD in the United States.Blood · 2016Article
- Characterization of human chromosomal material exchange with regard to the chromosome translocations using next-generation sequencing data.Genome biology and evolution · 2014Article
- Genomics of bleeding disorders.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPathogenic mutations range from single nucleotide changes to deletions or duplications that encompass a single exon to several genes. The use of gene-centric high-density array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) has revolutionized the detection of intragenic copy number variations. We implemented an exon-centric design of high-resolution aCGH to detect single- and multi-exon deletions and duplications in a large set of genes using the OGT 60 K and 180 K arrays. Here we describe the molecular characterization and breakpoint mapping of deletions at the smaller end of the detectable range in several genes using aCGH.
resultsThe method initially implemented to detect single to multiple exon deletions, was able to detect deletions much smaller than anticipated. The selected deletions we describe vary in size, ranging from over 2 kb to as small as 12 base pairs. The smallest of these deletions are only detectable after careful manual review during data analysis. Suspected deletions smaller than the detection size for which the method was optimized, were rigorously followed up and confirmed with PCR-based investigations to uncover the true detection size limit of intragenic deletions with this technology. False-positive deletion calls often demonstrated single nucleotide changes or an insertion causing lower hybridization of probes demonstrating the sensitivity of aCGH.
conclusionsWith optimizing aCGH design and careful review process, aCGH can uncover intragenic deletions as small as dozen bases. These data provide insight that will help optimize probe coverage in array design and illustrate the true assay sensitivity. Mapping of the breakpoints confirms smaller deletions and contributes to the understanding of the mechanism behind these events. Our knowledge of the mutation spectra of several genes can be expected to change as previously unrecognized intragenic deletions are uncovered.
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.