ArticleDisease models & mechanisms2024
Beyond genomic studies of congenital heart defects through systematic modelling and phenotyping.
Article in Disease models & mechanisms, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- EchoVisuALL: From Echocardiography to Gene Discovery.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Modelling Tetralogy of Fallot: insights and limitations of animal models.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- The power of mouse models in the diagnostic odyssey of patients with rare congenital anomalies.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Congenital heart defects (CHDs), the most common congenital anomalies, are considered to have a significant genetic component. However, despite considerable efforts to identify pathogenic genes in patients with CHDs, few gene variants have been proven as causal. The complexity of the genetic architecture underlying human CHDs likely contributes to this poor genetic discovery rate. However, several other factors are likely to contribute. For example, the level of patient phenotyping required for clinical care may be insufficient for research studies focused on mechanistic discovery. Although several hundred mouse gene knockouts have been described with CHDs, these are generally not phenotyped and described in the same way as CHDs in patients, and thus are not readily comparable. Moreover, most patients with CHDs carry variants of uncertain significance of crucial cardiac genes, further complicating comparisons between humans and mouse mutants. In spite of major advances in cardiac developmental biology over the past 25 years, these advances have not been well communicated to geneticists and cardiologists. As a consequence, the latest data from developmental biology are not always used in the design and interpretation of studies aimed at discovering the genetic causes of CHDs. In this Special Article, while considering other in vitro and in vivo models, we create a coherent framework for accurately modelling and phenotyping human CHDs in mice, thereby enhancing the translation of genetic and genomic studies into the causes of CHDs in patients.
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.