ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2015
Copy number variants prioritization after array-CGH analysis - a cohort of 1000 patients.
Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) in Genotoxicology: From the Basics to Modern Approaches.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Pathogenic Copy Number Variations Involved in the Genetic Etiology of Syndromic and Non-Syndromic Intellectual Disability-Data from a Romanian Cohort.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- [Copy number variation and parental consanguinity elevated in newborns of high altitude with major congenital anomalies in Perú].Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2022Article
- Importance of determining variations in the number of copies in newborns with autosomal aneuploidiesBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud · 2021Article
- Testing single/combined clinical categories on 5110 Italian patients with developmental phenotypes to improve array-based detection rate.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2020Article
- The clinical benefit of array-based comparative genomic hybridization for detection of copy number variants in Czech children with intellectual disability and developmental delay.BMC medical genomics · 2019Article
- Clinical and molecular findings in nine new cases of tetrasomy 18p syndrome: FISH and array CGH characterization.Molecular cytogenetics · 2019Article
- Prenatal diagnosis: the clinical usefulness of array comparative genomic hybridization.Porto biomedical journal · 2018Article
- Application of high-resolution array platform for genome-wide copy number variation analysis in patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and palate.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
- Array-CGH Analysis in a Cohort of Phenotypically Well-Characterized Individuals with "Essential" Autism Spectrum Disorders.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2018Article
- CGH analysis in Colombian patients: findings of 1374 arrays in a seven-year study.Molecular cytogenetics · 2018Article
- MLPA analysis in a cohort of patients with autism.Molecular cytogenetics · 2017Article
- Interstitial 6q21q23 duplication - variant of variable phenotype and incomplete penetrance or benign duplication?Molecular cytogenetics · 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
20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArray-based comparative genomic hybridization has been assumed to be the first genetic test offered to detect genomic imbalances in patients with unexplained intellectual disability with or without dysmorphisms, multiple congenital anomalies, learning difficulties and autism spectrum disorders. Our study contributes to the genotype/phenotype correlation with the delineation of laboratory criteria which help to classify the different copy number variants (CNVs) detected. We clustered our findings into five classes ranging from an imbalance detected in a microdeletion/duplication syndrome region (class I) to imbalances that had previously been reported in normal subjects in the Database of Genomic Variants (DGV) and thus considered common variants (class IV).
resultsAll the analyzed 1000 patients had at least one CNV independently of its clinical significance. Most of them, as expected, were alterations already reported in the DGV for normal individuals (class IV) or without known coding genes (class III-B). In approximately 14 % of the patients an imbalance involving known coding genes, but with partially overlapping or low frequency of CNVs described in the DGV was identified (class IIIA). In 10.4 % of the patients a pathogenic CNV that explained the phenotype was identified consisting of: 40 class I imbalances, 44 class II de novo imbalances and 21 class II X-chromosome imbalances in male patients. In 20 % of the patients a familial pathogenic or potentially pathogenic CNV, consisting of inherited class II imbalances, was identified that implied a family evaluation by the clinical geneticists.
conclusionsAs this interpretation can be sometimes difficult, particularly if it is not possible to study the parents, using the proposed classification we were able to prioritize the multiple imbalances that are identified in each patient without immediately having to classify them as pathogenic or benign.
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.