Cited by 711Genetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersGenetic Neurodegenerative DiseasesDown syndrome and intellectual disability research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 139 of the 153 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

FMR1 and the fragile X syndrome: Human genome epidemiology review

Open access
Crawford, Dana C., Acuña, Juan M., Sherman, Stephanie L.·2001·Genetics in Medicine

Abstract

The fragile X syndrome, an X-linked dominant disorder with reduced penetrance, is one of the most common forms of inherited mental retardation. The cognitive, behavioral, and physical phenotype varies by sex, with males being more severely affected because of the X-linked inheritance of the mutation. The disorder-causing mutation is the amplification of a CGG repeat in the 5' untranslated region of FMR1 located at Xq27.3. The fragile X CGG repeat has four forms: common (6-40 repeats), intermediate (41-60 repeats), premutation (61-200 repeats), and full mutation (>200-230 repeats). Population-based studies suggest that the prevalence of the full mutation, the disorder-causing form of the repeat, ranges from 1/3,717 to 1/8,918 Caucasian males in the general population. The full mutation is also found in other racial/ethnic populations; however, few population-based studies exist for these populations. No population-based studies exist for the full mutation in a general female population. In contrast, several large, population-based studies exist for the premutation or carrier form of the disorder, with prevalence estimates ranging from 1/246 to 1/468 Caucasian females in the general population. For Caucasian males, the prevalence of the premutation is approximately 1/1,000. Like the full mutation, little information exists for the premutation in other populations. Although no effective cure or treatment exists for the fragile X syndrome, all persons affected with the syndrome are eligible for early intervention services. The relatively high prevalence of the premutation and full mutation genotypes coupled with technological advances in genetic testing make the fragile X syndrome amenable to screening. The timing as well as benefits and harms associated with the different screening strategies are the subject of current research and discussion.

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 · 10.1097/00125817-200109000-00006

Cites

139 of 139 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

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

14 of the 153 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hagerman, 1996, Physical and behavioral phenotype, Fragile X syndrome: diagnosis, treatment, and research, 3
  2. Howard-Peebles, 1995, Fragile X screening in pediatric and obstetrical patients, Dev Brain Dysfunct, 8, 408
  3. Holden, 1995, Distribution and frequency of FMR1 CGG repeat numbers in the general population, Dev Brain Dysfunct, 8, 405

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Crawford, D. C., Acuña, J. M., & Sherman, S. L.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Venue
Genetics in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-09
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
359-371
ISSN
1098-3600 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2073347350
Cited by
711
References
153
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 38
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH-R01, R01‐grant)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD 29909, R01HD029909)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Genetic Neurodegenerative Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
Keywords
fragile X syndrome, FMR1 gene, CGG repeat expansion, premutation, full mutation, X-linked dominant inheritance, prevalence, carrier frequency, intellectual disability, sex differences in phenotype, genetic testing, screening method, early intervention
MeSH terms
Female, Fragile X Syndrome, Gene Frequency, Genetic Testing, Heterozygote, Humans, Male, Mutation, Nerve Tissue Proteins, Genome, Human, RNA-Binding Proteins, Trinucleotide Repeats, White People, Fragile X Mental Retardation Protein, Fragile X Messenger Ribonucleoprotein 1

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