ArticlePituitary2015
Prevalence of AIP mutations in a series of Turkish acromegalic patients: are synonymous AIP mutations relevant?
Article in Pituitary, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Relevance of Genetic Analysis in Patients With Pituitary Adenomas: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Pooled it
- Aryl hydrocarbon receptor interacting protein and syndromic gene variants detected in Turkish isolated pituitary adenoma families by whole exome sequencing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Low frequency of AIP mutations in patients with young-onset sporadic pituitary macroadenomas.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2023Article
- Phosphodiesterases and cAMP Pathway in Pituitary Diseases.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
- Article
- AIP mutations in young patients with acromegaly and the Tampico Giant: the Mexican experience.Endocrine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextIn sporadic acromegaly, overall AIP(mut) prevalence is reported as 3, 4.1 and 16 % in studies carried out across Europe. However, it is not known whether the prevalence shows any changes across different ethnicities. The aim of the study was to identify prevalence of AIP(mut) in a series of Turkish acromegalic patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsDirect sequencing of AIP gene was performed in 92 sporadic acromegalic patients.
resultsOne patient was found to have a new mutation in exon 6: g67.258,286 (G/A) heterozygote; (GGC/GAC; gly/asp). Apart from this new mutation, previously defined synonymous mutations in AIP gene were detected in seven patients (Exon 4; rs2276020; (GAC/GAT; asp/asp) and six patients were found to have five different intronic mutations in AIP gene which were not previously defined. The patient with pathogenic AIP(mut) presented at a young age and had an aggressive and treatment resistant tumour. The prevalence of AIP(mut) in Turkish patients was found to be 1 % in sporadic acromegaly in the present study. In addition, one synonymous mutation which was previously defined and six new intronic mutations have been described in Turkish acromegalic patients. All acromegalic patients with synonymous AIP(mut) presented with macroadenoma and majority of them had invasive tumour.
conclusionThe prevalence of AIP(mut) in Turkish patients was found to be 1 % in sporadic acromegaly in the present study. This ratio increases when younger age groups are taken into account 6 % among patients <30 years of age at the time of diagnosis of acromegaly. The clinical features of acromegaly, such as having large and invasive tumours, may be affected by the presence of synonymous AIP(mut).
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.