ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2019
Inference of maternal uniparental disomy of the entire chromosome 2 from a paternity test.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetic analysis of chromosome 2 copy-neutral loss of heterozygosity in paternity testing.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Article
- Maternal Uniparental Isodisomy of Chromosome 2 Leading to Homozygous Variants inGlobal medical genetics · 2024Review
- Article
- Multiple methods used for type detection of uniparental disomy in paternity testing.International journal of legal 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atypical situations arise during the constant resolution of paternity cases, which constitute challenges requiring additional genetic systems and non-standard methods. We report a paternity case presenting three alleged father (AF)-child incompatibilities for the markers TPOX, D2S441, and the indel locus B02 (11/11 vs 8/8; 14/14 vs 10/10; 2/2 vs1/1, respectively). Considering the presence of mutations/null alleles, the residual paternity indexes (PI) obtained with 23 autosomal short tandem repeats (STRs) and 38 indels suggest that the AF is the father (PI = 1.94e+011). Although the presence of few incompatibilities also could imply paternity of the AF brother, this hypothesis was less probable (PI = 3.20e+9) (W = 98.4 vs 1.6%, respectively). The inclusion of 23 Y-STR loci confirmed the paternity relationship in this case (global PI = 6.08e+15). However, the two multistep STRs and one indel incompatibilities allow discarding the mutation possibility. On the other hand, the confirmation of the homozygous STR genotypes with two different human identification kits and the low probability to find three null alleles (3.10e-8) allow rejecting the null allele presence hypothesis. Conversely, the child's homozygous genotype for maternal alleles in four markers located in the p and q arms of the chromosome 2 (TPOX, D2S441, D2S1338, and B02) suggests that maternal uniparental isodisomy better explains the relationship despite the presence of three paternal incompatibilities. In brief, when multiple incompatibilities are observed in paternity testing, the chromosomal location of the excluding loci and the use of additional genetic systems can be crucial to get confident kinship conclusions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29511852What 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.