2009
DOI: 10.1002/lary.20664
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Contemporary Review of AudioGene audioprofiling: A machine‐based candidate gene prediction tool for autosomal dominant nonsyndromic hearing loss

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
38
0
4

Year Published

2011
2011
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
38
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…All probands recruited to the study were screened for population-specific deafness alleles (Supplementary Table 1; Abdelfatah et al 2013a, b; Ahmed et al 2004; Doucette et al 2009; Young et al 2001). To identify other candidate genes to screen, audiograms were submitted to Audiogene (Hildebrand et al 2009) for computerized comparison with known average audiograms of 16 autosomal dominant loci (under the assumption that hearing loss was segregating as an autosomal dominant trait in these NL families). Bidirectional Sanger sequencing (ABI PRISM 3500XL DNA Analyzer; Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) with standard PCR assay using Primer3 (Untergasser et al 2012) was used to screen candidate mutations and genes (Merner et al 2008).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All probands recruited to the study were screened for population-specific deafness alleles (Supplementary Table 1; Abdelfatah et al 2013a, b; Ahmed et al 2004; Doucette et al 2009; Young et al 2001). To identify other candidate genes to screen, audiograms were submitted to Audiogene (Hildebrand et al 2009) for computerized comparison with known average audiograms of 16 autosomal dominant loci (under the assumption that hearing loss was segregating as an autosomal dominant trait in these NL families). Bidirectional Sanger sequencing (ABI PRISM 3500XL DNA Analyzer; Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) with standard PCR assay using Primer3 (Untergasser et al 2012) was used to screen candidate mutations and genes (Merner et al 2008).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The maximum pathogenicity score (PS) was 6, and we considered those variants with a PS >4 as likely pathogenic (5). In addition, variants were evaluated in terms of mode of inheritance (i.e., recessive vs. dominant), phenotype (i.e., enlarged vestibular aqueduct, SLC24A4 ; delayed motor milestones, Usher syndrome type 1), and audioprofile using AudioGene (11). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The analysis of audiometric profiles over a range of frequencies to describe phenotypic definitions may lead to the identification of underlying genotypes associated with a subset of cochlear genes (Hildebrand et al, 2009). Notched configurations are not included in their current Audiogene model (http://audiogene.eng.uiowa.edu/), nor in the European Union GENDEAF recommendations.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%