ReviewGenes2014
The revolution in human monogenic disease mapping.
Review in Genes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- [A review of diagnosis and treatment of syndromic hearing loss].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2021Review
- Helicobacter pylori Related Diseases and Osteoporotic Fractures (Narrative Review).Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Do Genomic Factors Play a Role in Diabetic Retinopathy?Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Review
- Massively Parallel Sequencing for Rare Genetic Disorders: Potential and Pitfalls.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2020Review
- Propelling the paradigm shift from reductionism to systems nutrition.Genes & nutrition · 2017Article
- A hybrid approach for de novo human genome sequence assembly and phasing.Nature methods · 2016Article
- Enhancement of Pathologist's Routine Practice: Reuse of DNA Extracted from Immunostained Formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded (FFPE) Slides in Downstream Molecular Analysis of Cancer.Cancer genomics & proteomicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The successful completion of the Human Genome Project (HGP) was an unprecedented scientific advance that has become an invaluable resource in the search for genes that cause monogenic and common (polygenic) diseases. Prior to the HGP, linkage analysis had successfully mapped many disease genes for monogenic disorders; however, the limitations of this approach were particularly evident for identifying causative genes in rare genetic disorders affecting lifespan and/or reproductive fitness, such as skeletal dysplasias. In this review, we illustrate the challenges of mapping disease genes in such conditions through the ultra-rare disorder fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP) and we discuss the advances that are being made through current massively parallel ("next generation") sequencing (MPS) technologies.
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.