Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26189818›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics2015

Decoding NF1 Intragenic Copy-Number Variations.

Meng-Chang Hsiao, Arkadiusz Piotrowski, Tom Callens, Chuanhua Fu, Katharina Wimmer, Kathleen B M Claes, Ludwine Messiaen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of human genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

7 authors.

Meng-Chang HsiaoMedical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Arkadiusz PiotrowskiMedical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA; Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Gdansk, 80-416 Gdansk, Poland.
Tom CallensMedical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Chuanhua FuMedical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA.
Katharina WimmerDivision of Human Genetics, Medical University Innsbruck, Peter-Mayr-Straße 1, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Kathleen B M ClaesCenter for Medical Genetics, Ghent University Hospital, De Pintelaan, 185 9000 Gent, Belgium.
Ludwine MessiaenMedical Genomics Laboratory, Department of Genetics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA. Electronic address: lmessiaen@uabmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic rearrangements can cause both Mendelian and complex disorders. Currently, several major mechanisms causing genomic rearrangements, such as non-allelic homologous recombination (NAHR), non-homologous end joining (NHEJ), fork stalling and template switching (FoSTeS), and microhomology-mediated break-induced replication (MMBIR), have been proposed. However, to what extent these mechanisms contribute to gene-specific pathogenic copy-number variations (CNVs) remains understudied. Furthermore, few studies have resolved these pathogenic alterations at the nucleotide-level. Accordingly, our aim was to explore which mechanisms contribute to a large, unique set of locus-specific non-recurrent genomic rearrangements causing the genetic neurocutaneous disorder neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Through breakpoint-spanning PCR as well as array comparative genomic hybridization, we have identified the breakpoints in 85 unrelated individuals carrying an NF1 intragenic CNV. Furthermore, we characterized the likely rearrangement mechanisms of these 85 CNVs, along with those of two additional previously published NF1 intragenic CNVs. Unlike the most typical recurrent rearrangements mediated by flanking low-copy repeats (LCRs), NF1 intragenic rearrangements vary in size, location, and rearrangement mechanisms. We propose the DNA-replication-based mechanisms comprising both FoSTeS and/or MMBIR and serial replication stalling to be the predominant mechanisms leading to NF1 intragenic CNVs. In addition to the loop within a 197-bp palindrome located in intron 40, four Alu elements located in introns 1, 2, 3, and 50 were also identified as intragenic-rearrangement hotspots within NF1.

Indexed as

Chromosome BreakpointsComparative Genomic HybridizationDNA Copy Number VariationsDNA Mutational AnalysisHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceNeurofibromatosis 1Neurofibromin 1Polymerase Chain ReactionNeurofibromin 1

Identifiers

PMID26189818
PMCPMC4573439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.