Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30718709›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Molecular genetic analysis using targeted NGS analysis of 677 individuals with retinal dystrophy.

Cathrine Jespersgaard, Mingyan Fang, Mette Bertelsen, Xiao Dang, Hanne Jensen, Yulan Chen, Niels Bech, Lanlan Dai, Thomas Rosenberg, Jianguo Zhang and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 121 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Restoring Sight: The Journey of AIPL1 from Discovery to Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Cone Rod Homeobox (Ophthalmic genetics · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A novel homozygous nonsense variant inOphthalmic genetics · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Cathrine JespersgaardKennedy Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.
Mingyan FangBGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.
Mette BertelsenKennedy Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.
Xiao DangBGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.
Hanne JensenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.
Yulan ChenBGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.
Niels BechDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.
Lanlan DaiBGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.
Thomas RosenbergDepartment of Ophthalmology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0095-8991
Jianguo ZhangBGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, 518083, China.
Lisbeth Birk MøllerKennedy Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-9524-4301
Zeynep TümerKennedy Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.
Karen Brøndum-NielsenKennedy Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark.
Karen GrønskovKennedy Center, Department of Clinical Genetics, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, DK2600, Denmark. karen.groenskov@regionh.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-2341-1326
University of Copenhagen · DKBGI Group (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a common cause of visual impairment. IRD covers a set of genetically highly heterogeneous disorders with more than 150 genes associated with one or more clinical forms of IRD. Molecular genetic diagnosis has become increasingly important especially due to expanding number of gene therapy strategies under development. Next generation sequencing (NGS) of gene panels has proven a valuable diagnostic tool in IRD. We present the molecular findings of 677 individuals, residing in Denmark, with IRD and report 806 variants of which 187 are novel. We found that deletions and duplications spanning one or more exons can explain 3% of the cases, and thus copy number variation (CNV) analysis is important in molecular genetic diagnostics of IRD. Seven percent of the individuals have variants classified as pathogenic or likely-pathogenic in more than one gene. Possible Danish founder variants in EYS and RP1 are reported. A significant number of variants were classified as variants with unknown significance; reporting of these will hopefully contribute to the elucidation of the actual clinical consequence making the classification less troublesome in the future. In conclusion, this study underlines the relevance of performing targeted sequencing of IRD including CNV analysis as well as the importance of interaction with clinical diagnoses.

Indexed as

Genetic Predisposition to DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolDenmarkDNA Copy Number VariationsDNA Mutational AnalysisExonsEye ProteinsFemaleGenetic CounselingGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingEye ProteinsEYS protein, humanMicrotubule-Associated ProteinsRP1 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID30718709
PMCPMC6362094
OpenAlexW2920632147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.