Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Guidelines for genetic studies in single patients: lessons from primary immunodeficiencies

Open access
Casanova, Jean-Laurent, Conley, Mary Ellen, Seligman, Stephen J., Abel, Laurent, Notarangelo, Luigi D.·2014·Journal of Experimental Medicine

Abstract

Can genetic and clinical findings made in a single patient be considered sufficient to establish a causal relationship between genotype and phenotype? We report that up to 49 of the 232 monogenic etiologies (21%) of human primary immunodeficiencies (PIDs) were initially reported in single patients. The ability to incriminate single-gene inborn errors in immunodeficient patients results from the relative ease in validating the disease-causing role of the genotype by in-depth mechanistic studies demonstrating the structural and functional consequences of the mutations using blood samples. The candidate genotype can be causally connected to a clinical phenotype using cellular (leukocytes) or molecular (plasma) substrates. The recent advent of next generation sequencing (NGS), with whole exome and whole genome sequencing, induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) technology, and gene editing technologies—including in particular the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/Cas9 technology—offer new and exciting possibilities for the genetic exploration of single patients not only in hematology and immunology but also in other fields. We propose three criteria for deciding if the clinical and experimental data suffice to establish a causal relationship based on only one case. The patient’s candidate genotype must not occur in individuals without the clinical phenotype. Experimental studies must indicate that the genetic variant impairs, destroys, or alters the expression or function of the gene product (or two genetic variants for compound heterozygosity). The causal relationship between the candidate genotype and the clinical phenotype must be confirmed via a relevant cellular phenotype, or by default via a relevant animal phenotype. When supported by satisfaction of rigorous criteria, the report of single patient–based discovery of Mendelian disorders should be encouraged, as it can provide the first step in the understanding of a group of human diseases, thereby revealing crucial pathways underlying physiological and pathological processes.

Overview

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 · 10.1084/jem.20140520

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Casanova, J.-L., Conley, M. E., Seligman, S. J., Abel, L., & Notarangelo, L. D.
Venue
Journal of Experimental Medicine
Published
2014-10-13
Volume
211
Issue
11
Pages
2137-2149
ISSN
  • 0022-1007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-9538
OpenAlex
W2105275733
Cited by
257
References
13
FWCI
10.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guidelines for genetic studies in single patients: lessons from primary immunodeficiencies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1084/jem.20140520
The paper
Casanova, J.-L., Conley, M. E., Seligman, S. J., Abel, L., & Notarangelo, L. D. (2014). Guidelines for genetic studies in single patients: lessons from primary immunodeficiencies. Journal of Experimental Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20140520

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.