ReviewJournal of human genetics2025
Genome-wide functional annotation and interpretation of splicing variants: toward RNA-targeted therapies.
Review in Journal of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Validation of aDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Functional Characterization of a Novel Intronic Complement Factor I Variant in Factor I Deficiency and Atypical Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- How RNA splicing decisions shape and break the developing heart.Nature cardiovascular research · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Yield of Genome Sequencing in an Iranian Exome-Negative Autosomal-Recessive Intellectual Disability Cohort.Human mutation · 2026Article
- Long-Read Sequencing Reveals RNA Splicing Complexity in Human Diseases.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Beyond the Exome: The Role of Noncoding and Regulatory Variants in Monogenic Diseases.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Splice-disruptive variants represent an underrecognized yet critical category of disease-causing mutations. While canonical splice site disruptions have long been associated with genetic disorders, it is now increasingly evident that synonymous, deep-intronic, and regulatory variants can also perturb splicing events and contribute to diseases. As genomic diagnostics shift from phenotype-first to genome-first paradigms, there is an urgent need for systematic strategies to identify and interpret such variants-including those residing in noncoding regions that escape detection by traditional annotation pipelines. This review provides an integrative overview of current in silico approaches for the annotation and interpretation of splice-disruptive variants. We outline the mechanistic diversity of splicing aberrations and discuss recent advances in computational prediction frameworks, including both deep learning-based models and motif-oriented tools. In parallel, we summarize experimental strategies that are used to validate predicted splicing effects and assess their pathogenic relevance. Focusing on clinically relevant contexts, we discuss how splicing-aware variant interpretation enhances diagnostic yield, informs the reclassification of variants of uncertain significance, and uncovers targets for therapeutic intervention. Finally, we consider the implications of such interpretation for RNA-targeted strategies, including antisense oligonucleotides, small-molecule modulators, and emerging RNA-editing platforms, particularly in neuromuscular and other splicing-driven disorders. Together, these insights underscore the expanding role of in silico splicing prediction in precision medicine, offering new diagnostic and therapeutic avenues for rare and undiagnosed genetic diseases.
Identifiers
41188449What 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.