ArticlePloS one2017
Molecular investigation by whole exome sequencing revealed a high proportion of pathogenic variants among Thai victims of sudden unexpected death syndrome.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case Report Series: Genetic and clinical characterization of long QT syndrome in admixed Ecuadorian patients and its implications for sudden cardiac death risk.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Sudden Death in Adults: A Practical Flow Chart for Pathologist Guidance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Identification of novel mutation in RANKL by whole-exome sequencing in a Thai family with osteopetrosis; a case report and review of RANKL osteopetrosis.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Review
- [Genetic testing to prevent sudden cardiac death].Der Internist · 2018Review
- Mapping and Ablation of Idiopathic Ventricular Fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2018Review
- Molecular Autopsy for Sudden Death in the Young: Is Data Aggregation the Key?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSudden unexpected death syndrome (SUDS) is an important cause of death in young healthy adults with a high incident rate in Southeast Asia; however, there are no molecular autopsy reports about these victims. We performed a combination of both a detailed autopsy and a molecular autopsy by whole exome sequencing (WES) to investigate the cause of SUDS in Thai sudden death victims. MATERIALS AND
methodsA detailed forensic autopsy was performed to identify the cause of death, followed by a molecular autopsy, in 42 sudden death victims who died between January 2015 and August 2015. The coding sequences of 98 SUDS-related genes were sequenced using WES. Potentially causative variants were filtered based on the variant functions annotated in the dbNSFP database. Variants with inconclusive clinical significance evidence in ClinVar were resolved with a variant prediction algorithm, metaSVM, and the frequency data of the variants found in public databases, such as the 1000 Genome Project, ESP6500 project, and the Exome Aggregation Consortium (ExAc) project.
resultsCombining both autopsy and molecular autopsy enabled the potential identification of cause of death in 81% of the cases. Among the 25 victims with WES data, 72% (18/25) were found to have potentially causative SUDS mutations. The majority of the victims had at a mutation in the TTN gene (8/18 = 44%), and only one victim had an SCN5A mutation.
conclusionsWES can help to identify the genetic causes in victims of SUDS and may help to further guide investigations into their relatives to prevent additional SUDS victims.
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.