Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33816658›Full record

ReviewMovement disorders clinical practice2021

Challenges in Clinicogenetic Correlations: One Phenotype - Many Genes.

Rahul Gannamani, Sterre van der Veen, Martje van Egmond, Tom J de Koning, Marina A J Tijssen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Movement disorders clinical practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Rare Movement Disorders-An Approach for Clinicians.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Relevance of Antibody Testing in Movement Disorders.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors.

Rahul GannamaniDepartment of Neurology University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4576-2271
Sterre van der VeenDepartment of Neurology University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0698-2087
Martje van EgmondDepartment of Neurology University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2648-6937
Tom J de KoningDepartment of Genetics University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5609-1309
Marina A J TijssenDepartment of Neurology University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5783-571X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the field of movement disorders, what you see (phenotype) is seldom what you get (genotype). Whereas 1 phenotype was previously associated to 1 gene, the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has facilitated an exponential increase in disease-causing genes and genotype-phenotype correlations, and the "one-phenotype-many-genes" paradigm has become prominent.

objectivesTo highlight the "one-phenotype-many-genes" paradigm by discussing the main challenges, perspectives on how to address them, and future directions.

methodsWe performed a scoping review of the various aspects involved in identifying the underlying molecular cause of a movement disorder phenotype.

resultsThe notable challenges are (1) the lack of gold standards, overlap in clinical spectrum of different movement disorders, and variability in the interpretation of classification systems; (2) selecting which patients benefit from genetic tests and the choice of genetic testing; (3) problems in the variant interpretation guidelines; (4) the filtering of variants associated with disease; and (5) the lack of standardized, complete, and up-to-date gene lists. Perspectives to address these include (1) deep phenotyping and genotype-phenotype integration, (2) adherence to phenotype-specific diagnostic algorithms, (3) implementation of current and complementary bioinformatic tools, (4) a clinical-molecular diagnosis through close collaboration between clinicians and genetic laboratories, and (5) ongoing curation of gene lists and periodic reanalysis of genetic sequencing data.

conclusionsDespite the rapidly emerging possibilities of NGS, there are still many steps to take to improve the genetic diagnostic yield. Future directions, including post-NGS phenotyping and cohort analyses enriched by genotype-phenotype integration and gene networks, ought to be pursued to accelerate identification of disease-causing genes and further improve our understanding of disease biology.

Indexed as

geneticsgenotypemovement disorderneurogeneticsphenotype

Identifiers

PMID33816658
PMCPMC8015914

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.