Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25315429›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2014

Deletions of chromosomal regulatory boundaries are associated with congenital disease.

Jonas Ibn-Salem, Sebastian Köhler, Michael I Love, Ho-Ryun Chung, Ni Huang, Matthew E Hurles, Melissa Haendel, Nicole L Washington, Damian Smedley, Christopher J Mungall and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
11.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

80 citing papers in PubMed, 148 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Linking DNA-packing density distribution and TAD boundary locations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Jonas Ibn-Salem
Sebastian Köhler
Michael I Love
Ho-Ryun Chung
Ni Huang
Matthew E Hurles
Melissa Haendel
Nicole L Washington
Damian Smedley
Christopher J Mungall
Suzanna E Lewis
Claus-Eric Ott
Sebastian Bauer
Paul N Schofield
Stefan Mundlos
Malte Spielmann
Peter N Robinson
Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DELawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · USWellcome Sanger Institute · GBFreie Universität Berlin · DEOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

The Monarch Initiative: Linking Diseases to Model Organism ResourcesR24OD011883 · OD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HAENDEL, MELISSA A, MUNGALL, CHRISTOPHER J · 2012 to 2024
$16.0M
Training Grant in Quantitative Sciences for Cancer ResearchT32CA009337 · NCI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI QUACKENBUSH, JOHN, TRIPPA, LORENZO · 1986 to 2025
$12.3M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009337NIH HHS 5R24OD011883NIH HHS R24 OD011883
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecent data from genome-wide chromosome conformation capture analysis indicate that the human genome is divided into conserved megabase-sized self-interacting regions called topological domains. These topological domains form the regulatory backbone of the genome and are separated by regulatory boundary elements or barriers. Copy-number variations can potentially alter the topological domain architecture by deleting or duplicating the barriers and thereby allowing enhancers from neighboring domains to ectopically activate genes causing misexpression and disease, a mutational mechanism that has recently been termed enhancer adoption.

resultsWe use the Human Phenotype Ontology database to relate the phenotypes of 922 deletion cases recorded in the DECIPHER database to monogenic diseases associated with genes in or adjacent to the deletions. We identify combinations of tissue-specific enhancers and genes adjacent to the deletion and associated with phenotypes in the corresponding tissue, whereby the phenotype matched that observed in the deletion. We compare this computationally with a gene-dosage pathomechanism that attempts to explain the deletion phenotype based on haploinsufficiency of genes located within the deletions. Up to 11.8% of the deletions could be best explained by enhancer adoption or a combination of enhancer adoption and gene-dosage effects.

conclusionsOur results suggest that enhancer adoption caused by deletions of regulatory boundaries may contribute to a substantial minority of copy-number variation phenotypes and should thus be taken into account in their medical interpretation.

Indexed as

Sequence DeletionChromosomes, HumanDatabases, GeneticDNA Copy Number VariationsGene DosageGene OntologyGenetic Diseases, InbornGenome, HumanGenomicsHaploinsufficiencyHumansModels, GeneticMolecular Sequence AnnotationPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID25315429
PMCPMC4180961
OpenAlexW2169500338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.