ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Identification of a New Variant of PUF60 Gene: Case Presentation and Literature Review.
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Case Report of Verheij Syndrome.Cureus · 2024Article
- Novel PUF60 variant suggesting an interaction between Verheij and Cornelia de Lange syndrome: phenotype description and review of the literature.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: The aim of the study was to report the case of a 5-month-old boy with a complex prenatal and neonatal symptomatology diagnosed with a "de novo" pathogenic variant of PUF60 gene. Case Report: Our hospital, undertook the antenatal and postnatal care of a 27-year-old pregnant lady. This was her second baby with a previously healthy boy. During her routine first-trimester anomaly scan, increased nuchal translucency was noticed. Multiple anomalies were seen throughout her subsequent antenatal visits. This triggered a sequence of tests, examinations and differential diagnosis. The final diagnosis was made at 5 months postpartum following the result of the whole exome sequence, which described a variant of unknown clinical significance (VUS, class 3 variant) in the PUF60 gene. We are mindful that changing the classification of a variant of unknown significance is challenging and requires supporting and robust criteria. Considering clinical symptomatology produced by the pathogenic mutation in the PUF gene, the identified c.1640A>G variant may be categorized as likely pathogenic. Conclusion: Our case adds new insights on the pathology and the underlying process involved in the PUF60 variant spectrum disorders. It also highlights the limits of current prenatal tests.
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.