ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2020
Multiple methods used for type detection of uniparental disomy in paternity testing.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhanced genetic diagnosis in early pregnancy loss: an integrated approach using CNV-Seq and STR genotyping.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Article
- Implications of uniparental disomy in forensic kinship testing: A case study of paternal isodisomy on chromosome 3.Journal of forensic sciences · 2026Article
- Case reports on uniparental disomy of chromosomes 6 and 3 in paternity testing.Forensic sciences research · 2024Article
- Maternal uniparental disomy of chromosome 21 as a cause of pseudo-exclusion from paternity.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Uniparental disomy (UPD) has attracted more attention recently in paternity testing, though it is an infrequent genetic event. Although short tandem repeat (STR) profiling has been widely used in paternity testing, it is not sufficient to use STR only to judge the genetic relationship, because the existence of UPD will inevitably affect the results of genotyping. Compared with complete UPD, segmental UPD is more difficult to detect because it does not affect all genotypes on the same chromosome. It is necessary to determine the type of UPD with multiple methods because a single method is not sufficient. Therefore, it is advisable to detect UPD in paternity testing with multiple methods. In this study, after autosomal STR profiling was used, we found that there were several gene loci on the same chromosome that did not conform to Mendelian genetic law, thus we highly suspected the existence of UPD and performed X-STR profiling immediately. Then whole-genome single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis was performed to identify the type, and the results provided straightforward evidence for distinguishing complete from segmental UPD. Lastly, we used deletion insertion polymorphism (DIP)-SNP SNaPshot assay and Miseq FGx sequencing (for SNP and STR) to determine whether the mutation source is maternal uniparental disomy (mUPD) or paternal uniparental disomy (pUPD). To avoid false exclusion of kinship, it is vital to determine the type of UPD in paternity testing and effective strategies based on multiple methods to detect the type of UPD are provided in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31807870What 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.