Utility of Oligonucleotide Array–Based Comparative Genomic Hybridization for Detection of Target Gene Deletions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: direct DNA sequencing is the primary clinical technique for identifying mutations in human disease, but sequencing often does not detect intragenic or whole-gene deletions. Oligonucleotide array-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) is currently in clinical use to detect major changes in chromosomal copy number. METHODS: a custom oligonucleotide-based microarray was constructed to provide high-density coverage of an initial set of 130 nuclear genes involved in the pathogenesis of metabolic and mitochondrial disorders. Standard array CGH procedures were used to test patient DNA samples for regions of copy number change. Sequencing of regions of predicted breakpoints in genomic DNA and PCR analysis were used to confirm oligonucleotide array CGH data. RESULTS: oligonucleotide array CGH identified intragenic exonic deletions in 2 cases: a heterozygous single-exon deletion of 4.5 kb in the SLC25A13 gene [solute carrier family 25, member 13 (citrin)] in an individual with citrin deficiency and a homozygous 10.5-kb deletion of exons 13-17 in the ABCB11 gene [PFIC2, ATP-binding cassette, sub-family B (MDR/TAP), member 11] in a patient with progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis. In 2 females with OTC deficiency, we also found 2 large heterozygous deletions of approximately 7.4 Mb and 9 Mb on the short arm of the X chromosome extending from sequences telomeric to the DMD gene [dystrophin (muscular dystrophy, Duchenne and Becker types)] to sequences within or centromeric to the OTC gene (ornithine carbamoyltransferase). CONCLUSIONS: these examples illustrate the successful use of custom oligonucleotide arrays to detect either whole-gene deletions or intragenic exonic deletions. This technology may be particularly useful as a complementary diagnostic test in the context of a recessive disease when only one mutant allele is found by sequencing.
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".