Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40880426›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Optimizing gene prioritization for clinical diagnosis of metabolic genetic disorders.

Beatriz Helena Dantas Rodrigues de Albuquerque, Daniel Carlos Ferreira Lanza

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Beatriz Helena Dantas Rodrigues de AlbuquerqueLaboratory of Applied Molecular Biology (LAPLIC), Department of Biochemistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Daniel Carlos Ferreira LanzaLaboratory of Applied Molecular Biology (LAPLIC), Department of Biochemistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1341-4814

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The expansion of next-generation sequencing has generated vast genomic datasets, but translating this information into clinically actionable tools for inherited metabolic disorders (IMDs) remains challenging. In this study, we systematically mapped gene-phenotype associations in IMDs using curated data from OMIM, ClinVar, Orphanet, and the Genetic Testing Registry (GTR). From 372 OMIM entries, we identified 228 genes definitively associated with metabolic diseases (GAMD). These genes displayed uneven chromosomal distribution, wide variability in pathogenic variant load, and strong clustering of phenotypes, particularly among amino acid metabolism disorders. Autosomal recessive inheritance was predominant. Integrating variant pathogenicity, phenotype prevalence, and diagnostic test availability, we designed two evidence-based diagnostic panels. The Subnotification Panel highlights under-tested but clinically relevant genes linked to more prevalent IMDs, aiming to address diagnostic underrepresentation. The Initial Screening Panel prioritizes genes with a high proportion of pathogenic variants, broad test accessibility, and strong clinical relevance, offering an efficient tool for first-line diagnostics. By bridging the gap between large-scale genomic information and precision clinical application, these panels provide a scalable and strategic framework to enhance diagnostic accuracy, support early intervention, and improve equity in the management of metabolic diseases.

Indexed as

Metabolic DiseasesDatabases, GeneticGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID40880426
PMCPMC12396656

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.