ArticleMolecular syndromology2023
Reanalysis of Chromosomal Microarray Data Using a Smaller Copy Number Variant Call Threshold Identifies Four Cases with Heterozygous Multiexon Deletions of ARID1B, EHMT1, and FOXP1 Genes.
Article in Molecular syndromology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is a highly accurate and established method for detecting copy number variations (CNVs) in clinical genetic testing. CNVs are important etiological factors for disorders such as intellectual disability, developmental delay, and multiple congenital anomalies. Recently developed analytical methods have facilitated the identification of smaller CNVs. Therefore, reanalyzing CMA data using a smaller CNV calling threshold may yield useful information. However, this method was left to the discretion of each institution. Methods: We reanalyzed the CMA data of 131 patients using a smaller CNV call threshold: 50 kb 50 probes for gain and 25 kb 25 probes for loss. We interpreted the reanalyzed CNVs based on the most recently available information. In the reanalysis, we filtered the data using the Clinical Genome Resource dosage sensitivity gene list as an index to quickly and efficiently check morbid genes. Results: The number of copy number loss was approximately 20 times greater, and copy number gain was approximately three times greater compared to those in the previous analysis. We detected new likely pathogenic CNVs in four participants: a 236.5 kb loss within Conclusion: The method employed in this study is simple and effective for CMA data reanalysis using a smaller CNV call threshold. Thus, this method is efficient for both ongoing and repeated analyses. This study may stimulate further discussion of reanalysis methodology in clinical laboratories.
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.