ArticleHuman genetics2024
Screening copy number variations in 35 unsolved inherited retinal disease families.
Article in Human genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Testing in Inherited Retinal Disease: Current Strategies and Future Directions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- Keep an Eye on Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) Technology: Secondary Findings and Differential Diagnosis in Inherited Retinal Dystrophies (IRDs).Biomedicines · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to screen Copy Number Variations (CNVs) in 35 unsolved Inherited Retinal Dystrophy (IRD) families. Initially, next generation sequencing, including a specific Hereditary Eye Disease Enrichment Panel or Whole exome sequencing, was employed to screen (likely) pathogenic Single-nucleotide Variants (SNVs) and small Insertions and Deletions (indels) for these cases. All available SNVs and indels were further validated and co-segregation analyses were performed in available family members by Sanger sequencing. If not, after excluding deep intronic variants, Multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), quantitative fluorescence PCR (QF-PCR) and Sanger sequencing were employed to screen CNVs. We determined that 18 probands who had heterozygous SNVs/indels or whose parents were not consanguineous but had homozygous SNVs/indels in autosomal recessive IRDs genes had CNVs in another allele of these genes, 11 families had disease-causing hemizygous CNVs in X-linked IRD genes, 6 families had (likely) pathogenic heterozygous CNVs in PRPF31 gene. Of 35 families, 33 different CNVs in 16 IRD-associated genes were detected, with PRPF31, EYS and USH2A the most common disease-causing gene in CNVs. Twenty-six and 7 of them were deletion and duplication CNVs, respectively. Among them, 14 CNVs were first reported in this study. Our research indicates that CNVs contribute a lot to IRDs, and screening of CNVs substantially increases the diagnostic rate of IRD. Our results emphasize that MLPA and QF-PCR are ideal methods to validate CNVs, and the novel CNVs reported herein expand the mutational spectrums of IRDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.