Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26188928›Full record

ArticleBMC medical genetics2015

Determining the genome-wide kinship coefficient seems unhelpful in distinguishing consanguineous couples with a high versus low risk for adverse reproductive outcome.

W Kelmemi, M E Teeuw, Z Bochdanovits, S Ouburg, M A Jonker, F Alkuraya, M Hashem, H Kayserili, A van Haeringen, E Sheridan and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

W KelmemiLaboratory of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
M E TeeuwDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Z BochdanovitsDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S OuburgLaboratory of Immunogenetics, Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Research School V-ICI, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M A JonkerDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
F AlkurayaDepartment of Genetics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
M HashemDepartment of Genetics, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
H KayseriliMedical Genetics Department, Istanbul Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
A van HaeringenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
E SheridanBradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.
A MasriDivision of Child Neurology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
J M CobbenDepartment of Pediatric Genetics, AMC University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P RizzuDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
P J KostenseDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
C J DommeringDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L HennemanDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
H Bouhamed-ChaabouniLaboratory of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tunis El Manar, Tunis, Tunisia.
P HeutinkDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L P Ten KateDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
M C CornelDepartment of Clinical Genetics, VU University Medical Center, Mail BS7, D450, P.O. Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. mc.cornel@vumc.nl.
Amsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLKing Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre · SATunis El Manar University · TNEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLGerman Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases · DEIstanbul University · TRLeiden University Medical Center · NLUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Jordan · JOWellcome Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOffspring of consanguineous couples are at increased risk of congenital disorders. The risk increases as parents are more closely related. Individuals that have the same degree of relatedness according to their pedigree, show variable genomic kinship coefficients. To investigate whether we can differentiate between couples with high- and low risk for offspring with congenital disorders, we have compared the genomic kinship coefficient of consanguineous parents with a child affected with an autosomal recessive disorder with that of consanguineous parents with only healthy children, corrected for the degree of pedigree relatedness.

methods151 consanguineous couples (73 cases and 78 controls) from 10 different ethnic backgrounds were genotyped on the Affymetrix platform and passed quality control checks. After pruning SNPs in linkage disequilibrium, 57,358 SNPs remained. Kinship coefficients were calculated using three different toolsets: PLINK, King and IBDelphi, yielding five different estimates (IBDelphi, PLINK (all), PLINK (by population), King robust (all) and King homo (by population)). We performed a one-sided Mann Whitney test to investigate whether the median relative difference regarding observed and expected kinship coefficients is bigger for cases than for controls. Furthermore, we fitted a mixed effects linear model to correct for a possible population effect.

resultsAlthough the estimated degrees of genomic relatedness with the different toolsets show substantial variability, correlation measures between the different estimators demonstrated moderate to strong correlations. Controls have higher point estimates for genomic kinship coefficients. The one-sided Mann Whitney test did not show any evidence for a higher median relative difference for cases compared to controls. Neither did the regression analysis exhibit a positive association between case-control status and genomic kinship coefficient.

conclusionsIn this case-control setting, in which we compared consanguineous couples corrected for degree of pedigree relatedness, a higher degree of genomic relatedness was not significantly associated with a higher likelihood of having an affected child. Further translational research should focus on which parts of the genome and which pathogenic mutations couples are sharing. Looking at relatedness coefficients by determining genome-wide SNPs does not seem to be an effective measure for prospective risk assessment in consanguineous parents.

Indexed as

ConsanguinityGenes, RecessiveBase SequenceCase-Control StudiesCongenital AbnormalitiesFemaleGenome, HumanGenotypeHumansMalePedigreePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNAStatistics, Nonparametric

Identifiers

PMID26188928
PMCPMC4557855
OpenAlexW1568263559

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.