ArticleGenes2022
Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploratory profiling of oxidative stress and hydrogen sulfide synthesis gene expression and sequence variants in gastric cancer patients.Molecular biology reports · 2026Article
- A regionally based precision medicine implementation initiative in North Africa:The PerMediNA consortium.Translational oncology · 2024Article
- Article
- A RareGenes · 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
17 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mutational screening of the CDH1 gene is a standard treatment for patients who fulfill Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer (HDGC) testing criteria. In this framework, the classification of variants found in this gene is a crucial step for the clinical management of patients at high risk for HDGC. The aim of our study was to identify CDH1 as well as CTNNA1 mutational profiles predisposing to HDGC in Tunisia. Thirty-four cases were included for this purpose. We performed Sanger sequencing for the entire coding region of both genes and MLPA (Multiplex Ligation Probe Amplification) assays to investigate large rearrangements of the CDH1 gene. As a result, three cases, all with the HDGC inclusion criteria (8.82% of the entire cohort), carried pathogenic and likely pathogenic variants of the CDH1 gene. These variants involve a novel splicing alteration, a missense c.2281G > A detected by Sanger sequencing, and a large rearrangement detected by MLPA. No pathogenic CTNNA1 variants were found. The large rearrangement is clearly pathogenic, implicating a large deletion of two exons. The novel splicing variant creates a cryptic site. The missense variant is a VUS (Variant with Uncertain Significance). With ACMG (American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics) classification and the evidence available, we thus suggest a revision of its status to likely pathogenic. Further functional studies or cosegregation analysis should be performed to confirm its pathogenicity. In addition, molecular exploration will be needed to understand the etiology of the other CDH1- and CTNNA1-negative cases fulfilling the HDGC inclusion criteria.
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.