Chromosomal anomalies on 6p25 in iris hypoplasia and Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome patients defined on a purpose-built genomic microarray
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many inherited diseases, the same phenotype can be produced both by single-base changes and by large deletions, or in some cases by duplications. Routine high-throughput sequencing can now detect small mutations relatively easily in a diagnostic setting, but deletions and duplications in the 50-500-kb region remain a more difficult problem. We have explored the application of array-CGH to the detection of such changes on a set of 20 samples consisting of patients with eye diseases associated with changes on chromosome 6p25 together with unaffected individuals, as well as two samples from tuberous sclerosis 2 (TSC2)-affected patients. We developed a microarray consisting of degenerate oligonucleotide primer (DOP)-PCR products from 260 human genomic clones, including BACs, PACs, and cosmids. In a masked study, chromosome changes in patients with iris hypoplasia (duplication) and Axenfeld-Rieger syndrome (deletion) were unequivocally distinguished from controls. Of the 20 6p25 samples analyzed, 19 were analyzed correctly (10 duplication cases, two deletions, and seven normals), while one individual failed to give a result because of poor hybridization. The extent of the duplication or deletion estimated was similar to that obtained by independent and much more time-consuming FISH experiments. On the other hand, deletions in the two TSC2-affected samples, previously mapped by DNA molecular combing, were not detected on the array, possibly due to the repeat content of that region. Excluding the 16p13 cosmids, consistent results were obtained from all other cosmid clones; the potential for producing affordable disease-specific diagnostic microarray as an adjunct to diagnosis is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".