ArticleMolecular genetics & genomic medicine2020
Whole exome sequencing establishes diagnosis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth 4J, 1C, and X1 subtypes.
Article in Molecular genetics & genomic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Genetic Landscape of Hereditary Spastic Paraplegia in Greece.Clinical genetics · 2026Article
- FIG4-Related Parkinsonism and the Particularities of the I41T Mutation: A Review of the Literature.Genes · 2024Review
- Clinical Characteristics of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease Type 4J.Neurology · 2024Article
- Clinical and Genetic Analysis of a Patient with CMT4J.Neurology international · 2022Article
- Case report and literature review: Novel compound heterozygousFrontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Novel Variants in theJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
- Whole exome sequencing establishes diagnosis of Charcot-Marie-Tooth 4J, 1C, and X1 subtypes.Molecular genetics & genomic 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCharcot-Marie-Tooth (CMT) hereditary polyneuropathies pose a diagnostic challenge. Our aim here is to describe CMT patients diagnosed by whole exome sequencing (WES) following years of fruitless testing. METHODS/
resultsThree patients with polyneuropathy suspected to be genetic in origin, but not harboring PMP22 gene deletion/duplication, were offered WES. The first patient, a 66-year-old man, had been suffering from progressive weakness and atrophies in the lower and upper extremities for 20 years. Due to ambiguous electrophysiological findings, immune therapies were administered to no avail. Twelve years after PMP22 deletion/duplication testing, WES revealed two pathogenic variants in the FIG4 gene (p.Ile41Thr and p.Phe598fs, respectively), as a cause of CMT 4J. The second patient, a 19-year-old man, had been suffering from hearing and gait impairment since at least his infancy, and recently presented with weakness and dystonia of the lower extremities. In this patient, WES identified the p.Leu122Val LITAF gene variant in heterozygous state, suggesting the diagnosis of CMT 1C, several years after initial genetic analyses. The third patient, a 44-year-old man, presented with progressive weakness and atrophies of the lower and upper extremities since the age of 17 years old. In this patient, WES identified the hemizygous p.Arg164Gln pathogenic variant in the GJB1 gene, establishing the diagnosis of CMT X1, 8 years after testing for PMP22 deletion/duplication.
conclusionNovel diagnostic techniques, such as WES, offer the possibility to decipher the cause of CMT subtypes, ending the diagnostic Odyssey of the patients and sparing them from unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.
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.