Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35627290›Full record

ArticleGenes2022

Array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation and Droplet Digital PCR Uncover Recurrent Copy Number Variation of the

Lydia Sagath, Vilma-Lotta Lehtokari, Katarina Pelin, Kirsi Kiiski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Lydia SagathFolkhälsan Research Center, Biomedicum, 00290 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-6754-3830
Vilma-Lotta LehtokariFolkhälsan Research Center, Biomedicum, 00290 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-8276-0972
Katarina PelinFolkhälsan Research Center, Biomedicum, 00290 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7040-7266
Kirsi KiiskiFolkhälsan Research Center, Biomedicum, 00290 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-1004-9612

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intragenic segmental duplication regions are potential hotspots for recurrent copy number variation and possible pathogenic aberrations. Two large sarcomeric genes, nebulin and titin, both contain such segmental duplication regions. Using our custom Comparative Genomic Hybridisation array, we have previously shown that a gain or loss of more than one copy of the repeated block of the nebulin triplicate region constitutes a recessive pathogenic mutation. Using targeted array-CGH, similar copy number variants can be detected in the segmental duplication region of titin. Due to the limitations of the array-CGH methodology and the repetitiveness of the region, the exact copy numbers of the blocks could not be determined. Therefore, we developed complementary custom Droplet Digital PCR assays for the titin segmental duplication region to confirm true variation. Our combined methods show that the titin segmental duplication region is subject to recurrent copy number variation. Gains and losses were detected in samples from healthy individuals as well as in samples from patients with different muscle disorders. The copy number variation observed in our cohort is likely benign, but pathogenic copy number variants in the segmental duplication region of titin cannot be excluded. Further investigations are needed, however, this region should no longer be neglected in genetic analyses.

Indexed as

DNA Copy Number VariationsSegmental Duplications, GenomicConnectinGenomicsHumansMuscle ProteinsPolymerase Chain ReactionConnectinMuscle ProteinsnebulinTTN protein, humancopy number variationDroplet Digital PCRsegmental duplicationtitinTTN

Identifiers

PMID35627290
PMCPMC9142044

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.