ArticleJournal of human genetics2025
The distribution of regions of homozygosity (ROH) among consanguineous populations-implications for a routine genetic counseling service.
Article in Journal of human genetics, 2025. 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.
- Whole-Genome Sequencing Unveils the Uniqueness of Yushu Yaks (International journal of molecular sciences · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regions of homozygosity (ROH) increase the risk of recessive disorders, and guidelines recommend reporting of excessive ROH in prenatal testing. However, ROH are common in populations that practice endogamy or consanguinity, and cutoffs for reporting ROH in such populations may not be evidence-based. We reviewed prenatal testing results (based on cytogenetic microarrays) from 2191 pregnancies in the Jewish and non-Jewish populations of Northern Israel and estimated the prevalence of ROH according to self-reported ethnicity and parental relationships. The proportion of the genome in ROH, ROH rate, was higher in non-Jews [Mean (SD) = 2.91% (3.92%); max = 25.54%; N = 689] than in Jews [Mean (SD) = 0.81% (0.49%); max = 3.93%; N = 1502]. In the non-Jewish populations, consanguineous marriages had the highest ROH rates [Mean (SD) = 7.14% (4.55%), N = 217], followed by endogamous [Mean (SD) = 1.13% (1.09%), N = 283] and non-endogamous [Mean (SD) = 0.69%(0. 56%), N = 189] marriages. ROH rates were greater than 5%, the ACMG-recommended cutoff, in 149/689 (21.63%) of the non-Jewish samples. Within the Jewish populations, the rates were similar between Ashkenazi, North African, and Middle Eastern Jews, but were higher for six consanguineous unions [Mean (SD) = 2.38% (1.23%)] and when spouses belonged to the same sub-population. Given the high ROH rates we observed in some subjects, we suggest that assessing the risk for recessive conditions in consanguineous/endogamous populations should be done before the first pregnancy, through genetic counseling and sequencing. Such an approach will: (1) identify couples who are at risk and counsel them on reproductive options; and (2) avoid the stress that couples who are not at risk may experience due to a prenatal ROH report.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39501123What 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.