Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39707553›Full record

ArticleActa neuropathologica communications2024

Relevance of muscle biopsies in the neonatal and early infantile period: a 52 years retrospective study in the gene-sequencing era.

Mai Thao Bui, Gorka Fernández-Eulate, Teresinha Evangelista, Emmanuelle Lacène, Guy Brochier, Clémence Labasse, Angéline Madelaine, Anaïs Chanut, Maud Beuvin, Favienne Borsato-Levy and 6 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Muscles (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Observational
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

16 authors.

Mai Thao Bui *Institute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Gorka Fernández-Eulate *Institute of Myology, Neuromuscular Diseases Reference Center Nord/Est/Ile-de-France, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, APHP, Paris, France.
Teresinha EvangelistaInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Emmanuelle LacèneInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Guy BrochierInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Clémence LabasseInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Angéline MadelaineInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Anaïs ChanutInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Maud BeuvinInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Favienne Borsato-LevyInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Valérie BiancalanaInstitut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire (IGBMC), Inserm U1258, CNRS UMR7104, Université de Strasbourg, Illkirch, France.
Giulia BarciaService de Médecine Génomique des Maladies Rares, Hôpital Necker Enfants Malades, APHP, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Pascale De LonlayHôpital Necker Enfants Malades, INSERM U1151, CNRS UMR8253, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Jocelyn LaporteInstitut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire (IGBMC), Inserm U1258, CNRS UMR7104, Université de Strasbourg, Illkirch, France.
Johann BöhmInstitut de Génétique et de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire (IGBMC), Inserm U1258, CNRS UMR7104, Université de Strasbourg, Illkirch, France.
Norma Beatriz RomeroInstitute of Myology, Neuromuscular Morphology Unit, Sorbonne Université, INSERM, GHU Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. nb.romero@institut-myologie.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neuromuscular disorders (NMD) with neonatal or early infantile onset are usually severe and differ in symptoms, complications, and treatment options. The establishment of a diagnosis relies on the combination of clinical examination, morphological analyses of muscle biopsies, and genetic investigations. Here, we re-evaluated and classified a unique collection of 535 muscle biopsies from NMD infants aged 0-6 months examined over a period of 52 years. We aimed to assess the importance and contribution of morphological muscle biopsy analyses for the establishment of a precise and accurate molecular diagnosis. Altogether, 82% of the biopsies showed typical structural myofiber anomalies highly suggestive of specific NMD classes (congenital myopathies, metabolic myopathies, lower motor neuron (LMN) and neuromuscular junction (NMJ) disorders, muscular dystrophies, inflammatory myopathies), while the remaining 18% showed no or only non-specific histological abnormalities. The diagnostic success rate differed among the NMD classes and was particularly high for congenital myopathies as illustrated by the identification of causative genes in 61% of cases. This is essentially due to the presence of characteristic histopathological hallmarks on biopsies visible by light or electron microscopy often pointing to specific genes. In contrast, metabolic myopathies commonly displayed non-specific features on muscle sections, led to the identification of causative genes in only 19% of the patients, and typically required additional enzymatic tests to establish a more precise diagnosis. The evolution of sequencing technologies fundamentally improved molecular diagnosis and also shifted the relevance of muscle biopsies within the diagnostic process. Depending on the clinical presentation of the patients, direct gene or panel sequencing may be the preferred method nowadays. However, histological and ultrastructural examinations of muscle sections are still frequently useful and can constitute an elemental step in the diagnostic process-either by directing purposeful gene sequencing or pointing to genes and pathogenic variants identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS), or by complementing clinical findings and biochemical analysis methods.

Indexed as

BiopsyMicroscopy, ElectronMuscle, SkeletalNeuromuscular DiseasesSequence AnalysisCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMaleRetrospective StudiesCongenital myopathyElectron microscopyMetabolic myopathyMuscle biopsyNeuromuscular disorderNMD

Identifiers

PMID39707553
PMCPMC11662432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.