ArticleJournal of translational medicine2015
Analyzing the most frequent disease loci in targeted patient categories optimizes disease gene identification and test accuracy worldwide.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carrier screening by next-generation sequencing: health benefits and cost effectiveness.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2016Article
- Discordant circulating fetal DNA and subsequent cytogenetics reveal false negative, placental mosaic, and fetal mosaic cfDNA genotypes.Journal of translational medicine · 2015Article
- Analyzing the most frequent disease loci in targeted patient categories optimizes disease gene identification and test accuracy worldwide.Journal of translational medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOur genomewide studies support targeted testing the most frequent genetic diseases by patient category: (1) pregnant patients, (2) at-risk conceptuses, (3) affected children, and (4) abnormal adults. This approach not only identifies most reported disease causing sequences accurately, but also minimizes incorrectly identified additional disease causing loci.
methodsDiseases were grouped in descending order of occurrence from four data sets: (1) GeneTests 534 listed population prevalences, (2) 4129 high risk prenatal karyotypes, (3) 1265 affected patient microarrays, and (4) reanalysis of 25,452 asymptomatic patient results screened prenatally for 108 genetic diseases. These most frequent diseases are categorized by transmission: (A) autosomal recessive, (B) X-linked, (C) autosomal dominant, (D) microscopic chromosome rearrangements, (E) submicroscopic copy number changes, and (F) frequent ethnic diseases.
resultsAmong affected and carrier patients worldwide, most reported mutant genes would be identified correctly according to one of four patient categories from at-risk couples with <64 tested genes to affected adults with 314 tested loci. Three clinically reported patient series confirmed this approach. First, only 54 targeted chromosomal sites would have detected all 938 microscopically visible unbalanced karyotypes among 4129 karyotyped POC, CVS, and amniocentesis samples. Second, 37 of 48 reported aneuploid regions were found among our 1265 clinical microarrays confirming the locations of 8 schizophrenia loci and 20 aneuploidies altering intellectual ability, while also identifying 9 of the most frequent deletion syndromes. Third, testing 15 frequent genes would have identified 124 couples with a 1 in 4 risk of a fetus with a recessive disease compared to the 127 couples identified by testing all 108 genes, while testing all mutations in 15 genes could have identified more couples.
conclusionTesting the most frequent disease causing abnormalities in 1 of 8 reported disease loci [~1 of 84 total genes] will identify ~ 7 of 8 reported abnormal Caucasian newborn genotypes. This would eliminate ~8 to 10 of ~10 Caucasian newborn gene sequences selected as abnormal that are actually normal variants identified when testing all ~2500 diseases looking for the remaining 1 of 8 disease causing genes. This approach enables more accurate testing within available laboratory and reimbursement resources.
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.