ArticleEuropean journal of human genetics : EJHG2025
Molecular diagnoses and candidate gene identification in the congenital heart disease cohorts of the 100,000 genomes project.
Article in European journal of human genetics : EJHG, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Young-onset hepatocellular carcinoma following double outlet right ventricle surgery without liver congestion: a case report with genetic analysis.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- A machine learning classifier to identify and prioritise genes associated with murine cardiac development.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Unravelling the genetic architecture of cardiovascular disease through structural variant detection with whole-genome sequencing.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Review
- Meta-analysis reveals transcription factors and DNA binding domain variants associated with congenital heart defect and orofacial cleft.NPJ genomic medicine · 2025Article
- Meta-analysis reveals transcription factors and DNA binding domain variants associated with congenital heart defect and orofacial cleft.medRxiv : the preprint server for health 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Congenital heart disease (CHD) describes a structural cardiac defect present from birth. A cohort of participants recruited to the 100,000 Genomes Project (100 kGP) with syndromic CHD (286 probands) and familial CHD (262 probands) were identified. "Tiering" following genome sequencing data analysis prioritised variants in gene panels linked to participant phenotype. To improve diagnostic rates in the CHD cohorts, we implemented an agnostic de novo Gene Discovery Pipeline (GDP). We assessed de novo variants (DNV) for unsolved CHD participants following filtering to select variants of interest in OMIM-morbid genes, as well as novel candidate genes. The 100kGP CHD cohorts had low rates of pathogenic diagnoses reported (combined CHD "solved" 5.11% (n = 28/548)). Our GDP provided diagnostic uplift of nearly one third (1.28% uplift; 5.11% vs. 6.39%), with a new or potential diagnosis for 9 additional participants with CHD. When a filtered DNV occurred within a non-morbid gene, our GDP prioritised biologically-plausible candidate CHD genes (n = 79). Candidate variants occurred in both genes linked to cardiac development (e.g. AKAP13 and BCAR1) and those currently without a known role (e.g. TFAP2C and SETDB1). Sanger sequencing of a cohort of patients with CHD did not identify a second de novo variant in the candidate dataset. However, literature review identified rare variants in HMCN1, previously reported as causative for pulmonary atresia, confirming the approach utility. As well as diagnostic uplift for unsolved participants of the 100 kGP, our GDP created a dataset of candidate CHD genes, which forms an important resource for further evaluation.
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.