ArticleHuman mutation2022
Diagnostic testing laboratories are valuable partners for disease gene discovery: 5-year experience with GeneMatcher.
Article in Human mutation, 2022. 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.
- Roles of the NFI/CTF gene family in transcription and development: update 2025.Academia biology · 2025Article
- Considerations for reporting variants in novel candidate genes identified during clinical genomic testing.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2024Article
- Considerations for reporting variants in novel candidate genes identified during clinical genomic testing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Integrated multi-omics for rapid rare disease diagnosis on a national scale.Nature medicine · 2023Article
- Five years' experience of the clinical exome sequencing in a Spanish single center.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Diagnostic testing laboratories are valuable partners for disease gene discovery: 5-year experience with GeneMatcher.Human mutation · 2022Article
- Seven years since the launch of the Matchmaker Exchange: The evolution of genomic matchmaking.Human mutation · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the rates of disease gene discovery have steadily increased with the expanding use of genome and exome sequencing by clinical and research laboratories, only ~16% of genes in the genome have confirmed disease associations. Here we describe our clinical laboratory's experience utilizing GeneMatcher, an online portal designed to promote disease gene discovery and data sharing. Since 2016, we submitted 246 candidates from 243 unique genes to GeneMatcher, of which 111 (45%) are now clinically characterized. Submissions meeting our candidate gene-reporting criteria based on a scoring system using patient and molecular-weighted evidence were significantly more likely to be characterized as of October 2021 versus genes that did not meet our clinical-reporting criteria (p = 0.025). We reported relevant findings related to these newly characterized gene-disease associations in 477 probands. In 218 (46%) instances, we issued reclassifications after an initial negative or candidate gene (uncertain) report. We coauthored 104 publications delineating gene-disease relationships, including descriptions of new associations (60%), additional supportive evidence (13%), subsequent descriptive cohorts (23%), and phenotypic expansions (4%). Clinical laboratories are pivotal for disease gene discovery efforts and can screen phenotypes based on genotype matches, contact clinicians of relevant cases, and issue proactive reclassification reports.
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.