ArticleAmerican journal of human genetics1994
Detection of tandem duplications and implications for linkage analysis.
Article in American journal of human genetics, 1994. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- 2018 Victor A. McKusick Leadership Award: Molecular Mechanisms for Genomic and Chromosomal Rearrangements.American journal of human genetics · 2019Article
- Article
- A common copy-number breakpoint of ERBB2 amplification in breast cancer colocalizes with a complex block of segmental duplications.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2012Article
- Genomic disorders ten years on.Genome medicine · 2009Article
- Copy number variation in human health, disease, and evolution.Annual review of genomics and human genetics · 2009Review
- Characterization of Potocki-Lupski syndrome (dup(17)(p11.2p11.2)) and delineation of a dosage-sensitive critical interval that can convey an autism phenotype.American journal of human genetics · 2007Article
- Global variation in copy number in the human genome.Nature · 2006Article
- Chromosomal duplications in bacteria, fruit flies, and humans.American journal of human genetics · 1996Review
- The value of family investigations in newly detected Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in children.European journal of pediatrics · 1995Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The first demonstration of an autosomal dominant human disease caused by segmental trisomy came in 1991 for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A). For this disorder, the segmental trisomy is due to a large tandem duplication of 1.5 Mb of DNA located on chromosome 17p11.2-p12. The search for the CMT1A disease gene was misdirected and impeded because some chromosome 17 genetic markers that are linked to CMT1A lie within this duplication. To better understand how such a duplication might affect genetic analyses in the context of disease gene mapping, we studied the effects of marker duplication on transmission probabilities of marker alleles, on linkage analysis of an autosomal dominant disease, and on tests of linkage homogeneity. We demonstrate that the undetected presence of a duplication distorts transmission ratios, hampers fine localization of the disease gene, and increases false evidence of linkage heterogeneity. In addition, we devised a likelihood-based method for detecting the presence of a tandemly duplicated marker when one is suspected. We tested our methods through computer simulations and on CMT1A pedigrees genotyped at several chromosome 17 markers. On the simulated data, our method detected 96% of duplicated markers (with a false-positive rate of 5%). On the CMT1A data our method successfully identified two of three loci that are duplicated (with no false positives). This method could be used to identify duplicated markers in other regions of the genome and could be used to delineate the extent of duplications similar to that involved in CMT1A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8198134PMC1918201What 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.