ArticleMolecular medicine reports2018
Prenatal diagnosis of sex chromosomal inversion, translocation and deletion.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Importance of aCGH in Genetic Counselling of Children with Psychomotor Retardation.The application of clinical genetics · 2022Article
- Retrospective analysis of the sex chromosomal copy number variations in 186 fetuses using single nucleotide polymorphism arrays.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Applying high-throughput sequencing to identify and evaluate foetal chromosomal deletion and duplication.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to perform comprehensive prenatal diagnosis using various detection techniques on a fetus in a high‑risk pregnant woman, and to provide genetic counseling for the patient and her family so as to avoid birth defects. The routine karyotype analysis via amniocentesis, fluorescence in situ hybridization, and whole genome microarray technique were performed for the prenatal diagnosis of the fetus. The fetal karyotype was 46,X,ish der(X) inv(X)(p22.3q28)t(X;Y)(q28;q11.2)(XYqter+,SRY‑,DXZ1+, RP11‑64L19+,STS+,XYpter+); namely, one fetal X chromosome belonged to the derivative imbalanced chromosome and this chromosome demonstrated complex chromosomal rearrangements involving inversion, translocation and deletion. Notably, pericentric inversion between Xp22.3 and Xq28 was identified, and the chromosomal microarray technique confirmed that the long arm q28 of the derivative X chromosome had a 1.241‑Mb deletion in Xq28, which included Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man genes such as coagulation factor VIII, glucose‑6‑phosphate dehydrogenase, inhibitor of nuclear factor‑κB kinase subunit γ, trimethyllysine hydroxylase ε, Ras‑related protein Rab‑39B and chloride intracellular channel 2. In addition, this chromosome also exhibited the local translocation of fragment Yq11.21‑q11.23, which did not include the sex determining region Y gene. This fetus demonstrated deletion, inversion and translocation syndrome, and may exhibit the corresponding clinical phenotypes (e.g., intellectual disability or general delayed development) (1) of such chromosome abnormalities after birth. Therefore, in prenatal diagnosis, a variety of genetic diagnostic techniques should be comprehensively used based on specific clinical situations, which may accurately reveal the nature, sources and manifestations of the derivative chromosome abnormalities and avoid the birth of children with defects.
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.