ArticleMolecular genetics and metabolism2025
High precision newborn screening for mucopolysaccharidosis type I by enzymatic activity followed by endogenous, non-reducing end glycosaminoglycan analysis.
Article in Molecular genetics and metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A North Carolina newborn screening pilot for mucopolysaccharidosis II: Evaluating endogenous nonreducing end glycosaminoglycan analysis and IDS sequencing as higher-tier testing options.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026Article
- Adult disease burden in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I H (Hurler syndrome): A comprehensive literature review with patient case analysis.Molecular genetics and metabolism reports · 2026Review
- Quantification of glycosaminoglycans in dried blood spots, and evaluation of its usefulness as a secondary newborn screening test for mucopolysaccharidoses.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Beyond Detection: Comparing State-Based Newborn Screening Methods for Effective Mucopolysaccharidosis I Diagnosis.International journal of neonatal screening · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measurement of enzymatic activity in newborn dried blood spots (DBS) is the preferred first-tier method in newborn screening (NBS) for mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) disorders. However, false positives are observed due mainly to the presence of pseudodeficiencies. Our previous publications on glycosaminoglycan (GAG) biomarker levels in dried blood spots (DBS) for mucopolysaccharidoses demonstrated that second-tier GAG biomarker analysis can dramatically reduce the false positive rate in NBS. In the present study, we extend this approach to the analysis of a large number of false positives for MPS-I obtained from the Illinois, New York, and Tennessee NBS programs and from Greenwood Genetics Center. Results show that GAG levels measured by the Endogenous-Non-Reducing End method (Endogenous-NRE) are in the normal reference range for all samples. In a second study, we analyzed 166 samples that showed below-cutoff MPS-I enzymatic activity level after testing 384,144 newborns in the Ontario, Canada NBS program. Both genotype and Endogenous-NRE GAG levels were determined for all 166 samples. Newborns at high risk for MPS-I based on genotype also showed elevated GAG levels and were clinically confirmed to be symptomatic for MPS-I. All newborns with pseudodeficiency or carrier status by genotyping all showed normal levels of the appropriate GAG biomarker. Samples found to be inconclusive based on one or more variants of unknown significance (VUS) all showed normal GAG biomarker levels and were found to be clinically normal during follow-up. These studies show that the Endogenous-NRE GAG second-tier NBS method is preferred over second-tier DNA analysis for the NBS of MPS-I with minimal false positives.
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.