Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34284807›Full record

ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2021

Clinical significance and mechanisms associated with segmental UPD.

Peter R Papenhausen, Carla A Kelly, Samuel Harris, Samantha Caldwell, Stuart Schwartz, Andrea Penton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. UPDhmm: detecting uniparental disomy from NGS trio data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. An Incidental Detection of a Rare UPD in SNP-Array Based PGT-SR: A Case Report.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Peter R PapenhausenCytogenetics Department, Laboratory Corporation of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Carla A KellyCytogenetics Department, Laboratory Corporation of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Samuel HarrisMorsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.
Samantha CaldwellCytogenetics Department, Laboratory Corporation of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Stuart SchwartzCytogenetics Department, Laboratory Corporation of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Andrea PentonCytogenetics Department, Laboratory Corporation of America, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA. pentona@labcorp.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8428-081X
Research Triangle Park Foundation · USUniversity of South Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whole chromosome uniparental disomy (UPD) has been well documented with mechanisms largely understood. However, the etiology of segmental limited UPD (segUPD) is not as clear. In a 10-year period of confirming (> 300) cases of whole chromosome UPD, we identified 86 segmental cases in both prenatal and postnatal samples. Thirty-two of these cases showed mosaic segmental UPD at 11p due to somatic selection associated with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome. This study focuses on apparent mechanisms associated with the remaining cases, many of which appear to represent corrections of genomic imbalance such as deletions and derivative chromosomes. In some cases, segmental UPD was associated with the generation of additional genomic imbalance while in others it apparently resulted in restoration of euploidy. Multiple tests utilizing noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT), chorionic villus sampling (CVS) and amniotic fluid samples from the same pregnancy revealed temporal evidence of correction and a "hotspot" at 1p. Although in many cases the genomic imbalance was dosage "repaired" in the analyzed tissue, clinical effects could be sustained due to early developmental effects of the original imbalance or due to its continued existence in other tissues. In addition, if correction did not occur in the gametes there would be recurrence risks for the offspring of those individuals. Familial microarray allele patterns are presented that differentiate lack of gamete correction from somatic derived gonadal mosaicism. These results suggest that the incidence of segUPD mediated correction is underestimated and may explain the etiology of some clinical phenotypes which are undetected by routine microarray analysis and many exome sequencing studies.

Indexed as

Chromosome microarray (CMA)CytogeneticsHomologous recombinationMitotic correctionSegmental uniparental disomyUniparental disomy

Identifiers

PMID34284807
PMCPMC8290618
OpenAlexW3183500541

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.