ArticleThe Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD2017
Chromosomal Microarray Detection of Constitutional Copy Number Variation Using Saliva DNA.
Article in The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deletion ofCold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2021Article
- Impact of DNA source on genetic variant detection from human whole-genome sequencing data.Journal of medical genetics · 2019Article
- Structural variation at the CYP2C locus: Characterization of deletion and duplication alleles.Human mutation · 2019Article
- Familial inheritance of the 3q29 microdeletion syndrome: case report and review.BMC medical genomics · 2019Article
- De Novo Interstitial Deletion of 9q in a Pediatric Patient With Global Developmental Delay.Child neurology open · 2019Article
- Cytogenomic identification and long-read single molecule real-time (SMRT) sequencing of aNPJ genomic medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chromosomal microarray (CMA) testing to detect copy number aberrations among individuals with multiple congenital anomalies and/or developmental delay is typically performed on peripheral blood DNA. However, the use of saliva DNA may be preferred for some patients, which prompted our validation study using six saliva DNA samples with a range of bacterial content (approximately 3% to 21%) and 20 paired blood and saliva specimens on the Agilent Technologies, Illumina, and Affymetrix CMA platforms. Ten of the 20 paired specimens were previously determined to carry clinically significant copy number aberrations by clinical CMA testing on blood DNA (100 kb to 2.56 Mb; five deletions, eight duplications). Notably, the quality of saliva DNA (DNA Genotek) was equivalent to blood DNA regardless of bacterial content, as was CMA quality and single-nucleotide polymorphism genotyping quality with all CMA platforms. The number of copy number variants and absence of heterozygosity regions detected by CMA were comparable between paired blood and saliva DNA and, more important, all 13 clinically significant copy number aberrations were detected in saliva DNA by all CMA platforms. These data confirm that the quality of saliva DNA is comparable to blood DNA regardless of bacterial content, including important CMA and single-nucleotide polymorphism quality metrics, and that saliva DNA is a reliable alternative for the detection of clinically significant copy number aberrations by clinical CMA testing.
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.