[Genetic analysis of three families affected with split-hand/split-foot malformation].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the genetic etiology of three families affected with split-hand/split-foot malformation (SHFM). METHODS: Peripheral venous blood samples from 21 members of pedigree 1, 2 members of pedigree 2, and 2 members of pedigree 3 were collected. PCR-Sanger sequencing, microarray chip, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), real-time PCR, and next-generation sequencing were employed to screen the mutations in the 3 families. The effect of the identified mutations on the finger (toe) abnormality were also explored. RESULTS: Microarray and real-time PCR analysis has identified a duplication in all patients from pedigrees 1 and 3, which have spanned FKSG40, TLX1, LBX1, BTRC, POLL and FBXW4 (exons 6-9) and LBX1, BTRC, POLL and FBXW4 (exons 6-9) genes, respectively. A missense mutation of the TP63 gene, namely c.692A>G (p.Tyr231Cys), was found in two patients from pedigree 2. FISH analysis of chromosome 10 showed that the rearrangement could fita tandem duplication model. However, next-generation sequencing did not identify the breakpoint. CONCLUSION: The genetic etiology for three families affected with SHFM have been identified, which has provideda basis for genetic counseling and guidance for reproduction.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".