Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32424072›Full record

ArticleGenome research2020

Determining the impact of uncharacterized inversions in the human genome by droplet digital PCR.

Marta Puig, Jon Lerga-Jaso, Carla Giner-Delgado, Sarai Pacheco, David Izquierdo, Alejandra Delprat, Magdalena Gayà-Vidal, Jack F Regan, George Karlin-Neumann, Mario Cáceres

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genomic architecture and functional effects of potential human inversion supergenes.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Marta PuigInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4439-6372
Jon Lerga-JasoInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4807-1900
Carla Giner-DelgadoInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1429-6768
Sarai PachecoInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3425-4901
David IzquierdoInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7790-0339
Alejandra DelpratInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.
Magdalena Gayà-VidalCIBIO/InBIO Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, University of Porto, 4485-661 Vairão, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7042-8948
Jack F ReganDigital Biology Center, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Pleasanton, California 94588, USA.
George Karlin-NeumannDigital Biology Center, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Pleasanton, California 94588, USA.
Mario CáceresInstitut de Biotecnologia i de Biomedicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7736-3251
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESBio-Rad (United States) · USInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats · ESUniversidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the interest in characterizing genomic variation, the presence of large repeats at the breakpoints hinders the analysis of many structural variants. This is especially problematic for inversions, since there is typically no gain or loss of DNA. Here, we tested novel linkage-based droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays to study 20 inversions ranging from 3.1 to 742 kb flanked by inverted repeats (IRs) up to 134 kb long. Of those, we validated 13 inversions predicted by different genome-wide techniques. In addition, we obtained new experimental human population information across 95 African, European, and East Asian individuals for 16 inversions, including four already validated variants without high-throughput genotyping methods. Through comparison with previous data, independent replicates and both inversion breakpoints, we demonstrate that the technique is highly accurate and reproducible. Most studied inversions are widespread across continents, and their frequency is negatively correlated with genetic length. Moreover, all except two show clear signs of being recurrent, and we could better define the factors affecting recurrence levels and estimate the inversion rate across the genome. Finally, the generated genotypes have allowed us to check inversion functional effects, validating gene expression differences reported before for two inversions and finding new candidate associations. Therefore, the developed methodology makes it possible to screen these and other complex genomic variants quickly in a large number of samples for the first time, highlighting the importance of direct genotyping to assess their potential consequences and clinical implications.

Indexed as

Chromosome InversionGenome, HumanGenotyping TechniquesHumansNucleotidesPolymerase Chain ReactionNucleotides

Identifiers

PMID32424072
PMCPMC7263195
OpenAlexW3026827147

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.