ArticleScientific reports2024
A series of genetically confirmed congenital lipodystrophy and diabetes in adult southern Indian patients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Undernutrition-Associated Diabetes Mellitus: Pathophysiology of a Global Problem.Physiology (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Review
- Inherited Lipodystrophy Associated With POLD1 and CAVIN1 Mutations: Two Cases From the Indian Subcontinent.Cureus · 2025Article
- Pathogenetic therapeutic approaches for endocrine diseases based on antisense oligonucleotides and RNA-interference.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Type 5 Diabetes- The Rejuvenated Spirit from a Ghost of the Past.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, we analysed the mutation spectrum in subjects with suspected lipodystrophy using a targeted Next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach. Subjects with suspected lipodystrophy were for screened six genes (AGPAT2, BSCL2, LMNA, PPARG, ZMPSTE24, INSR) and the variants identified were confirmed through Sanger sequencing. The clinical and biochemical parameters were compared among the mutation positive and negative subjects. We identified eight individuals with pathogenic or likely pathogenic mutations, including both homozygous and heterozygous variants. Homozygous variants included AGPAT2(NM_006412.4):c.493-2A>G, AGPAT2(NM_006412.4):c.254_258dup, and BSCL2(NM_001122955.4):c.570del, while heterozygous variants encompassed LMNA(NM_170707.4):c.1444C>T, LMNA(NM_170707.4):c.1456A>G, LMNA(NM_170707.4):c.1445G>A, and PPARG(NM_015869.5):c.949T>C mutations. In this cohort, three subjects were diagnosed with congenital generalized lipodystrophy, while the remaining five had familial partial lipodystrophy. Majority (7/8) of the patients with lipodystrophy had hepatic involvement. Notably, more than half of the subjects (5/8) achieved optimal glycemic control through insulin sensitizers (PPARγ agonist and Metformin). Interestingly, even with a limited gene panel test, mutation-positive individuals exhibited a higher prevalence of typical clinical features and biochemical characteristics associated with lipodystrophy compared to their mutation-negative counterparts. In subjects with lipodystrophy, targeted NGS based screening may establish a genetic diagnosis and aid in family screening and genetic counselling. Knowing the clinical and biochemical features typical to lipodystrophy may help in diagnosis especially in resource limited setting.
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.