ArticleBMC medical genomics2024
A female patient carrying a novel DMD mutation with non-random X-chromosome inactivation from a DMD family.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Myonuclear Domain-Associated and Central Nucleation-Dependent Spatial Restriction of Dystrophin Protein Expression.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2026Article
- AppER: Design and Validation of a Mobile Application for Caregivers of Patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Their Families in Spain and Latin America.Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the clinical phenotype and genetic characteristics of a female proband carrying a novel mutation in the DMD gene with non-random X-chromosome inactivation in a large pedigree with pseudohypertrophic muscular dystrophy.
methodsClinical information of the female proband, her monozygotic twin sister, and other family members were collected. Potential pathogenic variants were detected with Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification (MLPA) and whole-exome sequencing (WES). Methylation-sensitive restriction enzyme (HhaI) was employed for X-chromosome inactivation analysis.
resultsThe proband was a female over 5 years old, displayed clinical manifestations such as elevated creatine kinase (CK) levels and mild calf muscle hypertrophy. Her monozygotic twin sister exhibited normal CK levels and motor ability. Her uncle and cousin had a history of DMD. WES revealed that the proband carried a novel variant in the DMD (OMIM: 300,377) gene: NM_004006.3: c.3051_3053dup; NP_003997.2: p.Tyr1018*. In this pedigree, five out of six female members were carriers of this variant, while the cousin and uncle were hemizygous for this variant. X-chromosome inactivation analysis suggested non-random inactivation in the proband.
conclusionThe c.3051_3053dup (p.Tyr1018*) variant in the DMD gene is considered to be the pathogenic variant significantly associated with the clinical phenotype of the proband, her cousin, and her uncle within this family. Integrating genetic testing with clinical phenotype assessment can be a valuable tool for physicians in the diagnosis of progressive muscular dystrophies, such as Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD).
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.