Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Relative Burden of Large CNVs on a Range of Neurodevelopmental Phenotypes

Open access
Girirajan, Santhosh, Brkanac, Zoran, Coe, Bradley P., Baker, Carl, Vives, Laura, Vu, Tiffany H., Shafer, Neil, Bernier, Raphael, Ferrero, Giovanni B., Silengo, Margherita, Warren, Stephen T., Moreno, Carlos S., Fichera, Marco, Romano, Corrado, Raskind, Wendy H., Eichler, Evan E.·2011·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

While numerous studies have implicated copy number variants (CNVs) in a range of neurological phenotypes, the impact relative to disease severity has been difficult to ascertain due to small sample sizes, lack of phenotypic details, and heterogeneity in platforms used for discovery. Using a customized microarray enriched for genomic hotspots, we assayed for large CNVs among 1,227 individuals with various neurological deficits including dyslexia (376), sporadic autism (350), and intellectual disability (ID) (501), as well as 337 controls. We show that the frequency of large CNVs (>1 Mbp) is significantly greater for ID-associated phenotypes compared to autism (p = 9.58 × 10(-11), odds ratio = 4.59), dyslexia (p = 3.81 × 10(-18), odds ratio = 14.45), or controls (p = 2.75 × 10(-17), odds ratio = 13.71). There is a striking difference in the frequency of rare CNVs (>50 kbp) in autism (10%, p = 2.4 × 10(-6), odds ratio = 6) or ID (16%, p = 3.55 × 10(-12), odds ratio = 10) compared to dyslexia (2%) with essentially no difference in large CNV burden among dyslexia patients compared to controls. Rare CNVs were more likely to arise de novo (64%) in ID when compared to autism (40%) or dyslexia (0%). We observed a significantly increased large CNV burden in individuals with ID and multiple congenital anomalies (MCA) compared to ID alone (p = 0.001, odds ratio = 2.54). Our data suggest that large CNV burden positively correlates with the severity of childhood disability: ID with MCA being most severely affected and dyslexics being indistinguishable from controls. When autism without ID was considered separately, the increase in CNV burden was modest compared to controls (p = 0.07, odds ratio = 2.33).

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002334

Cites

89 of 89 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 89 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Girirajan, S., Brkanac, Z., Coe, B. P., Baker, C., Vives, L., Vu, T. H., Shafer, N., Bernier, R., Ferrero, G. B., Silengo, M., Warren, S. T., Moreno, C. S., Fichera, M., Romano, C., Raskind, W. H., & Eichler, E. E.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2011-11-10
Volume
7
Issue
11
Pages
e1002334
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2145709699
Cited by
324
References
89
FWCI
18.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Relative Burden of Large CNVs on a Range of Neurodevelopmental Phenotypes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002334
The paper
Girirajan, S., Brkanac, Z., Coe, B. P., Baker, C., Vives, L., Vu, T. H., Shafer, N., Bernier, R., Ferrero, G. B., Silengo, M., Warren, S. T., Moreno, C. S., Fichera, M., Romano, C., Raskind, W. H., & Eichler, E. E. (2011). Relative Burden of Large CNVs on a Range of Neurodevelopmental Phenotypes. PLoS Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002334

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.