ArticleBMC genomics2024
RHC genotyping in Chinese Han population.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. 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.
- Rapid Detection ofDrug design, development and therapy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Rh blood group system is characterized by its complexity and polymorphism, encompassing 56 different antigens. Accurately predicting the presence of the C antigen using genotyping methods has been challenging. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of various genotyping methods for predicting the Rh C and to identify a suitable method for the Chinese Han population.
methodsIn total, 317 donors, consisting 223 D+ (including 20 with the Del phenotype) and 94 D- were randomly selected. For RHC genotyping, 48C and 109bp insertion were detected on the Real-time PCR platform and -292 substitution was analyzed via restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Moreover, the promoter region of the RHCE gene was sequenced to search for other nucleotide substitutions between RHC and RHc. Agreement between prediction methods was evaluated using the Kappa statistic, and comparisons between methods were conducted via the χ
resultsThe analysis revealed that the 48C allele, 109bp insertion, a specific pattern observed in RFLP results, and wild-type alleles of seven single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were in strong agreement with the Rh C, with Kappa coefficients exceeding 0.8. However, there were instances of false positives or false negatives (0.6% false negative rate for 109bp insertion and 5.4-8.2% false positive rates for other methods). The 109bp insertion method exhibited the highest accuracy in predicting the Rh C, at 99.4%, compared to other methods (P values≤0.001). Although no statistical differences were found among other methods for predicting Rh C (P values>0.05), the accuracies in descending order were 48C (94.6%) > rs586178 (92.7%) > rs4649082, rs2375313, rs2281179, rs2072933, rs2072932, and RFLP (92.4%) > rs2072931 (91.8%).
conclusionsNone of the methods examined can independently and accurately predict the Rh C. However, the 109bp insertion test demonstrated the highest accuracy for predicting the Rh C in the Chinese Han population. Utilizing the 109bp insertion test in combination with other methods may enhance the accuracy of Rh C prediction.
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.