Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30258273›Full record

ReviewCurrent genomics2018

A Review of Copy Number Variants in Inherited Neuropathies.

Vincenzo Salpietro, Andreea Manole, Stephanie Efthymiou, Henry Houlden

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A mutational hotspot inFrontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  4. Allelic heterogeneity and abnormal vesicle recycling inFrontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. TAR Cloning: Perspectives for Functional Genomics, Biomedicine, and Biotechnology.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vincenzo SalpietroDepartment of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Andreea ManoleDepartment of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Stephanie EfthymiouDepartment of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Henry HouldenDepartment of Molecular Neuroscience, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid development in the last 10-15 years of microarray technologies, such as oligonucleotide array Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH) and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) genotyping array, has improved the identification of fine chromosomal structural variants, ranging in length from kilobases (kb) to megabases (Mb), as an important cause of genetic differences among healthy individuals and also as disease-susceptibility and/or disease-causing factors. Structural genomic variations due to unbalanced chromosomal rearrangements are known as Copy-Number Variants (CNVs) and these include variably sized deletions, duplications, triplications and translocations. CNVs can significantly contribute to human diseases and rearrangements in several dosage-sensitive genes have been identified as an important causative mechanism in the molecular aetiology of Charcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) disease and of several CMT-related disorders, a group of inherited neuropathies with a broad range of clinical phenotypes, inheritance patterns and causative genes. Duplications or deletions of the dosage-sensitive gene PMP22 mapped to chromosome 17p12 represent the most frequent causes of CMT type 1A and Hereditary Neuropathy with liability to Pressure Palsies (HNPP), respectively. Additionally, CNVs have been identified in patients with other CMT types (e.g., CMT1X, CMT1B, CMT4D) and different hereditary poly- (e.g., giant axonal neuropathy) and focal- (e.g., hereditary neuralgic amyotrophy) neuropathies, supporting the notion of hereditary peripheral nerve diseases as possible genomic disorders and making crucial the identification of fine chromosomal rearrangements in the molecular assessment of such patients. Notably, the application of advanced computational tools in the analysis of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) data has emerged in recent years as a powerful technique for identifying a genome-wide scale complex structural variants (e.g., as the ones resulted from balanced rearrangements) and also smaller pathogenic (intragenic) CNVs that often remain beyond the detection limit of most conventional genomic microarray analyses; in the context of inherited neuropathies where more than 70 disease-causing genes have been identified to date, NGS and particularly Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) hold the potential to reduce the number of genomic assays required per patient to reach a diagnosis, analyzing with a single test all the Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) and CNVs in the genes possibly implicated in this heterogeneous group of disorders.

Indexed as

Array analysisCharcot marie toothCopy number variantsInherited peripheral neuropathiesStructural variationsWhole genome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID30258273
PMCPMC6128387
OpenAlexW2795258685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.