Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39669630›Full record

ArticleGenetics in medicine open2024

Detection and characterization of copy-number variants from exome sequencing in the DDD study.

Petr Danecek, Eugene J Gardner, Tomas W Fitzgerald, Giuseppe Gallone, Joanna Kaplanis, Ruth Y Eberhardt, Caroline F Wright, Helen V Firth, Matthew E Hurles

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics in medicine open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Artificial intelligence in clinical genetics: Current practice and attitudes among the clinical genetics workforce.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Rare 19q13.42 duplication encompassingTranslational pediatrics · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Petr DanecekWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Eugene J GardnerWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Tomas W FitzgeraldWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Giuseppe GalloneWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Joanna KaplanisWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Ruth Y EberhardtWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Caroline F WrightDepartment of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Helen V FirthWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.
Matthew E HurlesWellcome Sanger Institute, Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Structural variants such as multiexon deletions and duplications are an important cause of disease but are often overlooked in standard exome/genome sequencing analysis. We aimed to evaluate the detection of copy-number variants (CNVs) from exome sequencing (ES) in comparison with genome-wide low-resolution and exon-resolution chromosomal microarrays (CMAs) and to characterize the properties of de novo CNVs in a large clinical cohort. Methods: We performed CNV detection using ES of 9859 parent-offspring trios in the Deciphering Developmental Disorders (DDD) study and compared them with CNVs detected from exon-resolution array comparative genomic hybridization in 5197 probands from the DDD study. Results: Integrating calls from multiple ES-based CNV algorithms using random forest machine learning generated a higher quality data set than using individual algorithms. Both ES- and array comparative genomic hybridization-based approaches had the same sensitivity of 89% and detected the same number of unique pathogenic CNVs not called by the other approach. Of DDD probands prescreened with low-resolution CMAs, 2.6% had a pathogenic CNV detected by higher-resolution assays. De novo CNVs were strongly enriched in known DD-associated genes and exhibited no bias in parental age or sex. Conclusion: ES-based CNV calling has higher sensitivity than low-resolution CMAs currently in clinical use and comparable sensitivity to exon-resolution CMA. With sufficient investment in bioinformatic analysis, exome-based CNV detection could replace low-resolution CMA for detecting pathogenic CNVs.

Indexed as

Chromosomal microarraysCopy-number variationExome sequencingNeurodovelopmental diseaseRare disease

Identifiers

PMID39669630
PMCPMC11613862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.