Cited by 425Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsGenomics and Rare Diseases

Estimates of penetrance for recurrent pathogenic copy-number variations

Open access
Rosenfeld, Jill A., Coe, Bradley P., Eichler, Evan E., Cuckle, Howard, Shaffer, Lisa G.·2013·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although an increasing number of copy-number variations are being identified as susceptibility loci for a variety of pediatric diseases, the penetrance of these copy-number variations remains mostly unknown. This poses challenges for counseling, both for recurrence risks and prenatal diagnosis. We sought to provide empiric estimates for penetrance for some of these recurrent, disease-susceptibility loci. METHODS: We conducted a Bayesian analysis, based on the copy-number variation frequencies in control populations (n = 22,246) and in our database of >48,000 postnatal microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization samples. The background risk for congenital anomalies/developmental delay/intellectual disability was assumed to be ~5%. Copy-number variations studied were 1q21.1 proximal duplications, 1q21.1 distal deletions and duplications, 15q11.2 deletions, 16p13.11 deletions, 16p12.1 deletions, 16p11.2 proximal and distal deletions and duplications, 17q12 deletions and duplications, and 22q11.21 duplications. RESULTS: Estimates for the risk of an abnormal phenotype ranged from 10.4% for 15q11.2 deletions to 62.4% for distal 16p11.2 deletions. CONCLUSION: This model can be used to provide more precise estimates for the chance of an abnormal phenotype for many copy-number variations encountered in the prenatal setting. By providing the penetrance, additional, critical information can be given to prospective parents in the genetic counseling session.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/gim.2012.164

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • About 0.25% of controls (n=66,462) are found with the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 microdeletion.

    “a review of reported data from control cohorts (n = 66,462 subjects) summarized to date show that about 0.25% of controls are found with the 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 microdeletion [18,27,28,29,30,31].”

    From The 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 Microdeletion Syndrome: A Review (2015) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Methods section (page unavailable) includes 15q11.2 deletions in an analysis of 22,246 controls, and the Results discuss their frequency in cases and controls. Our copy does not report a pooled cohort of 66,462 controls or establish the claimed 0.25% control frequency. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The penetrance for the 15q11.2 microdeletion is low compared to the 16p11.2 deletion with a penetrance estimated at 62.4%.

    “The penetrance for the 15q11.2 microdeletion is low compared to other microdeletion syndromes such as the 16p11.2 deletion with a penetrance estimated at 62.4% [28].”

    From The 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 Microdeletion Syndrome: A Review (2015) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Results report 10.4% penetrance for 15q11.2 deletions versus 62.4% for *distal* 16p11.2 deletions. The cited sentence omits “distal,” making the 62.4% estimate sound applicable to 16p11.2 deletions generally; the paper also distinguishes proximal deletions. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The penetrance of the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 microdeletion is an approximate two fold increase over the general population risk.

    “The penetrance of the 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 microdeletion has also been estimated at 10.4% [28] or an approximate two fold increase over the general population risk but may be due to paucity of inheritance data.”

    From The 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 Microdeletion Syndrome: A Review (2015) · cites this paper as [28]

  • The penetrance of the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 microdeletion has been estimated at 10.4%.

    “The penetrance of the 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 microdeletion has also been estimated at 10.4% [28] or an approximate two fold increase over the general population risk but may be due to paucity of inheritance data.”

    From The 15q11.2 BP1–BP2 Microdeletion Syndrome: A Review (2015) · cites this paper as [28]

  • More than 200 15q11.2 deletion carriers have been reported in clinical series with mild, moderate and severe neurodevelopmental symptoms as well as malformations.

    “More than 200 15q11.2 deletion carriers have been reported in clinical series with mild, moderate and severe neurodevelopmental symptoms as well as malformations leading authors to delineate a microdeletion syndrome with considerable phenotypic variability9 and incomplete penetrance.10”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenfeld, J. A., Coe, B. P., Eichler, E. E., Cuckle, H., & Shaffer, L. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Shaffer, Lisa G.
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-06
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
478-481
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010458876
Cited by
425
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 17
FWCI
12.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Screening and Diagnostics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
Keywords
copy number variation, penetrance, 1q21.1 deletion, 16p11.2 deletion, 22q11.2 duplication, congenital malformations, intellectual disability, developmental delay, prenatal diagnosis, genetic counseling, recurrence risk, Bayesian estimation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Genotype, Humans, Models, Genetic, Case-Control Studies, Penetrance, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Genetic Loci, DNA Copy Number Variations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review