↓ Skip to main content

SNP arrays: comparing diagnostic yields for four platforms in children with developmental delay

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Genomics, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
SNP arrays: comparing diagnostic yields for four platforms in children with developmental delay
Published in
BMC Medical Genomics, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12920-014-0070-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guylaine D’Amours, Mathieu Langlois, Géraldine Mathonnet, Raouf Fetni, Sonia Nizard, Myriam Srour, Frédérique Tihy, Michael S Phillips, Jacques L Michaud, Emmanuelle Lemyre

Abstract

BackgroundMolecular karyotyping is now the first-tier genetic test for patients affected with unexplained intellectual disability (ID) and/or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA), since it identifies a pathogenic copy number variation (CNV) in 10-14% of them. High-resolution microarrays combining molecular karyotyping and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping were recently introduced to the market. In addition to identifying CNVs, these platforms detect loss of heterozygosity (LOH), which can indicate the presence of a homozygous mutation or of uniparental disomy. Since these abnormalities can be associated with ID and/or MCA, their detection is of particular interest for patients whose phenotype remains unexplained. However, the diagnostic yield obtained with these platforms is not confirmed, and the real clinical value of LOH detection has not yet been established.MethodsWe selected 21 children affected with ID, with or without congenital malformations, for whom standard genetic analyses had failed to provide a diagnosis. We performed high-resolution SNP array analysis with four platforms (Affymetrix Genome-Wide Human SNP Array 6.0, Affymetrix Cytogenetics Whole-Genome 2.7 M array, Illumina HumanOmni1-Quad BeadChip, and Illumina HumanCytoSNP-12 DNA Analysis BeadChip) on whole-blood samples obtained from the children and their parents to detect pathogenic CNVs and LOHs, and compared the results with those obtained on a moderate resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization platform (NimbleGen CGX-12 Cytogenetics Array), already in use in the clinical setting.ResultsWe identified a total of four pathogenic CNVs in three patients, and all arrays successfully detected them. With the SNP arrays, we also identified a LOH containing a gene associated with a recessive disorder consistent with the patient¿s phenotype (i.e., an informative LOH) in four children (including two siblings). A homozygous mutation within the informative LOH was found in three of these patients. Therefore, we were able to increase the diagnostic yield from 14.3% to 28.6% as a result of the information provided by LOHs.ConclusionsThis study shows the clinical usefulness of SNP arrays in children with ID, since they successfully detect pathogenic CNVs, but also identify informative LOHs that can lead to the diagnosis of a recessive disorder. It also highlights some of the challenges associated with the use of SNP arrays in a clinical laboratory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 23 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2015.
All research outputs
#16,164,355
of 23,975,876 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Genomics
#706
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,278
of 359,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Genomics
#25
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,876 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,278 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.