Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28617419›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics2017

Utilization of genomic sequencing for population screening of immunodeficiencies in the newborn.

Ashleigh R Pavey, Dale L Bodian, Thierry Vilboux, Alina Khromykh, Natalie S Hauser, Kathi Huddleston, Elisabeth Klein, Aaron Black, Megan S Kane, Ramaswamy K Iyer and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genomic newborn screening for rare diseases.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Future Perspectives of Newborn Screening for Inborn Errors of Immunity.International journal of neonatal screening · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. When should genomic and exome sequencing be implemented in newborns? A call for an update to newborn screening guidelines.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2020
    Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ashleigh R PaveyDepartment of Pediatrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Dale L BodianInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Thierry VilbouxInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Alina KhromykhInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Natalie S HauserInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Kathi HuddlestonInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Elisabeth KleinInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Aaron BlackInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Megan S KaneInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Ramaswamy K IyerInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
John E NiederhuberInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Benjamin D SolomonInova Translational Medicine Institute, Falls Church, Virginia,USA.
Inova Children's Hospital · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · USWalter Reed National Military Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeImmunodeficiency screening has been added to many state-directed newborn screening programs. The current methodology is limited to screening for severe T-cell lymphopenia disorders. We evaluated the potential of genomic sequencing to augment current newborn screening for immunodeficiency, including identification of non-T cell disorders.MethodsWe analyzed whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and clinical data from a cohort of 1,349 newborn-parent trios by genotype-first and phenotype-first approaches. For the genotype-first approach, we analyzed predicted protein-impacting variants in 329 immunodeficiency-related genes in the WGS data. As a phenotype-first approach, electronic health records were used to identify children with clinical features suggestive of immunodeficiency. Genomes of these children and their parents were analyzed using a separate pipeline for identification of candidate pathogenic variants for rare Mendelian disorders.ResultsWGS provides adequate coverage for most known immunodeficiency-related genes. 13,476 distinct variants and 8,502 distinct predicted protein-impacting variants were identified in this cohort; five individuals carried potentially pathogenic variants requiring expert clinical correlation. One clinically asymptomatic individual was found genomically to have complement component 9 deficiency. Of the symptomatic children, one was molecularly identified as having an immunodeficiency condition and two were found to have other molecular diagnoses.ConclusionNeonatal genomic sequencing can potentially augment newborn screening for immunodeficiency.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningWhole Genome SequencingComputational BiologyData CurationFemaleGenetic TestingGenotypeHumansImmunologic Deficiency SyndromesInfant, NewbornMalePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID28617419
OpenAlexW2625243576

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.